tabletopcave

Freelance writer & designer. Hobbies include tabletop gaming, rpg, anime & sports (especially football!), check out

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@ArseOpinions @Graham93201 @TheAthleticFC @CWeatherspoon_ You do know that you don't prove money are being transferred via emails right? You have to back it up with actual money transfers, bank statements, even witness statements of payments being made....

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@Jg_997 @City_Xtra The point is that Dave hasn't given money Peter. Only Peter have given their money to John and Peter have recieved money from Tom. As long as Dave isn't Tom, and it can't be proven Dave has given John nor Peter nor Tom money, you can't claim Dave has given John money...

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@BIZKID_WORLD @City_Xtra Yes, as stated Etihad claim that as the owner Abu Dhabi government have invested in the company. The money invested is among other things used in sponsor deals. It seems you haven't understood what you highlighted?

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@krhonie @DaveBannon779 @City_Xtra Discussing a potential conspiracy isn't enough proof that a conspiracy took place. They need to prove that money actually was transfered from ADUG to the sponsors to be inject back into the club. If the sponsors can prove they only got money from the government the case is over

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@Vida_the_Vidal @City_Xtra Because there is a legal and clear difference between the Prince Court/Abu Dhabi government and ADUG (the owner of City). You can't claim the owner injected money through sham contracts if they didn't transfer any money but instead another entity did it.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@MbonisiNdl42597 @TheCartel14 @City_Xtra PL need to prove that money was actually transfered between ADUG and the sponsors. Just dismissing evidence to the contrary wouldn't stand up legally.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@MbonisiNdl42597 @TheCartel14 @City_Xtra Because it could prove that it wasn't ADUG that gave the sponsors the extra funds. That's the key. PL claim the owner (ADUG9 injected extra funds into the club via sham contracts. While City will argue the money came from sponsors funded by the Abu Dhabi government.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@afrais82697 @City_Xtra Eh no, do you have problem reading? In both cases the money comes from the sponsor. And in both cases the sponsor is owned and funded by the Abu Dhabi government. It's excatly the same statement in 2015 as in 2026.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@PortDomini58370 @City_Xtra That's their whole point. Abu Dhabi government funds Etihad, and PL have already agreed that ADUG (owner of Man City) isn't the same as the Abu Dhabi government.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@PatrickZuva @TheAthleticFC Cheated or utlized a legal loophole? Chelsea sold property to "themselves", Villa sold their women's team, Arsenal got a rent-free loan from their owner etc. Some may claim they all were cheating, but they were simply using every legal route to their advantage.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@KUEFC @centroista @MikeKeegan_DM Sheik Mansour through ADUG owns City. He is the deputy prime minister and brother of the current prime minister of UAE. Legally ADUG and the government of UAE are two separate juridical entities.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@ziggy0416 @centroista Yeah, it isn't ADUG so if the money transfers are as claimed by City they will walk free

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@KingKenny_20 @centroista @MikeKeegan_DM The point is that emails saying one things doesn't automatically negate actually bank statements and witness statements.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@TheDiggers4 @centroista @MikeKeegan_DM If that is the belief of pl they will fail as it's already confirmed ADUG is not the government of UAE, as was the case when they passer the ownership test back in 2008

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@GoatApocalypse @centroista @MikeKeegan_DM The pl case is that the owner/ADUG gave money to the sponsorer to inflate the sponsorship they receive. They now claim it was the government that injected money into the sponsorer which enabled them to sponsor the club. ADUG is not the same as the government of UAE

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@supremefeysal @centroista @MikeKeegan_DM The sponsorer are state owned. A state can freely inject money to its companies. ADUG and the owner Mansour are not the state government of UAE

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@Lipsy198 @TheAthleticFC If that was the only reason other fast players would do the same, but they can't.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@Sporthub365 @OliverKay The linesman had input, he wrongly judged Haaland to be offside, which was overruled by VAR when watching the tapes.

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@roger_reed2 @OliverKay This is obvious when watching during the broadcast. They were only talking about Haaland being in offside and not believe Dorgu playing him onside. The replay show they were wrong. The Enzo only comes in play afterwards. First, if there is a touch, then if he influence the play

[tabletopcave @tabletop_cave]

@roger_reed2 @OliverKay For most it seems obvious that Enzo does infact influence how the opposition reacts, but we still see these kinds get given every season. But nobody can safely claim that they immediately were right in saying it was offside...