@NataniaMarshall Four thousand years ago, satan declared war on the Jewish people. From Egypt to the Assyrian empire; from Babylon to Medo-Persia, the Grecian empire to the mighty Roman Empire. The Star of David still stands. Israel will outlive you and your likes.
@pistol1603@mrdaniel989 Emails are mere statements of intent.
You need paper trail to back it up. That was why CAS ruled in City’s favour because the paper trail concluded that City didn’t cheat.
@GaryChr21501647@RealTalkMCFC The objective was was reach a reasonable conclusion.
The language used indicates that the process is very hostile to City.
Calling the contracts a sham and witnesses liars is very hostile.
@colinmufc2@LiamB07 The accusation states that the money came from the sheikh via Etihad to City.
The IC will have to prove that this is the case. Remember that they accused city and not the other way around.
@GaryChr21501647@RealTalkMCFC It’s not up to City to prove their innocence. The accuser must prove that City are guilty. That’s the way the law works.
Not inviting Etihad and them accuse them of sham contract with City is in itself a sham.
@Londonblue_2 The leak is a part of their orchestrated campaign against City. They knew the outcome of the IC right from day one. That’s why 4 clubs served notices to seek compensation in 2024.
Sham trial will be the legacy of Richard Masters.
@CBChris__@City_Xtra It’s obvious now that you and your club are the real cheats bent on using underhanded tactics to get s rival out of the way.
I hope the Glazers put a billion more debt on United until the roof caves.
@Dalton67C@JimmyMu35984013 If that’s the case, then the PL should be worried.
You can’t accuse a major international airline of being involved in a fraud without solid evidence.
@NeilSennett@JimmyMu35984013 It’s not up to City to prove guilt. If the PL did not invite the major sponsors, how did they reach the conclusion that it is a sham contract?