best version

[best version @johnmulinde]

@Kelkster04 Fck off.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@MarkOgden_ This is highly debated and the documentation does actually say they can’t objectively prove this but go on. This would never stand in a court of law which is where city want it to go. A lot of subjective opinions on the available evidence.

[best version @johnmulinde]

So this was inferred because someone had a haunch. So much subjectivity. We live in a capitalist world. One can charge whatever amount they want if the other party is willing to pay. This is difficult to prove in a court of law. Two similar items can cost different amounts. Fair value is BS as this can be so subjective.

[best version @johnmulinde]

Idk how you come away with that assessment when most of the evidence is retracted. There is so much subjectivity in that opinion. How do you definitively prove that sponsors were given money to infalate deals so they could funnel money back to Mancity.
You would have to say Mancity through their owner orchestrated this knowingly and deliberately to cheat. Govts lend money to companies for all sorts of reasons . One can argue ADUG fronts money to ethihad to sponsor Mancity for more recognition on the world stage hence improving commercial opportunity and hence more economic activity.
The document clearly states there is so much inference. This is high burden of proof if they got to court.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@TheRealFbloke There is so much subjectivity that this would be tossed out of court. Am not a lawyer and can already see arguments on both sides. Hard to prove tbh. Proof of burden is on the premier league not city.

[best version @johnmulinde]

If you take this shit to a court of law it won’t stand, it’s hard to prove unless you can get into someone mind and say objectively these deals were arranged to front money to city under the said sponsorships. Govts can front money to companies, it happens all the time. The premier league problem is to prove without a reasonable doubt that ADUG knowingly/deliberately inflated deals but then fund the remainder the inflated portion. The stolen emails are probably not admissible in court. Premier league should not allow this to go to court if they smart. I see why CAS threw this shit out.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@Omwami_glen Unfortunately we as Ugandans have resigned to whatever these people want to do. Am honestly not too bothered. The fact that this is discussed like it’s like the law of the land is mind boggling. FYI this man was educated at Yale University. Crazy times head.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@RedFanaticArt @KalshiFooty It’s their money, no business in the world from investing owner capital. No wonder these are some the dumbest rules out there.

[best version @johnmulinde]

A lot of city fans immediately turned on the owners who have brought them so much success. A lot of them would rather believe all the vitriol than the clubs communication. Am glad we got big Steve view. It was a breath of fresh air when all the so called city channels are all after the club chairman calling him a liar. What a mess.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@MauriceK1421 I was always dubious that’s were I stopped. They have proved themselves for 18 years to stop at nothing for the success of this club. They don’t even make any money out of this. First sight of trouble and you idiots are out for blood. Ridiculous

[best version @johnmulinde]

@Neosurgeon35 @StealthIntelOps So no sub-specialization within the field?

[best version @johnmulinde]

Funny how humans work, this will come and pass. Funny there is a chance this harms the premier league. The athletic please have your field day.
Never fault a man who invests their money into something they actually don’t make any profit out of. They did what they thought was the only way to invest more money into the club.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@Ry___4 @hamed_alharthi @David_Ornstein Oh the premier league has published the verdict?

[best version @johnmulinde]

@TheArsenalFan2w Which court of law?

[best version @johnmulinde]

@semitic_jew These phones keep a digital footprint of whatever you do. It’s for a back door meant for law enforcement. It’s kinda ridiculous you own a phone that can snitch on you. This is a known fact, idk why you are surprised.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@TommySmythESPN @GrumpyPundits Fck off, making it sound like they murdered someone.

[best version @johnmulinde]

I have been commenting on your post the same thing. Yall including you make it sound like these owners were bribing match officials or even murdered someone. I support the owners all the way. They spent their own money and found ways to do it when they got restricted. This super annoying tbh.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@Londonblue_2 Guilty of non-sense. Making it seem like they bribed match officials or murdered someone. These fckn made up rules.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@ZohranKMamdani Don’t make me dislike your ass lol.

[best version @johnmulinde]

@LolentiMuhammad Bonds in the west have good interest rates, I was told they own European bonds.