01 Oct 2026
New image uploaded to the
Liverpool Player Sightings page entitled,
Click picture for larger image
01 Oct 2026 15:03:51
We're definitely not state owned, but our state owners are the ones who funded us, not the sponsors who are owned by the same state. However that state don't own us anyway. Got it? Irrefutable!
01 Oct 2026 15:04:47
Man I hate legal documents.
Minimum 33 Appendices.
I'm not reading those.
Reading those few paragraphs tired me out.
GUILTY I say.
{Ed666's Note - Im not reading all that either I’ll just wait for Indykalias version ?
01 Oct 2026 15:08:07
So City's 'defence' was to essentially admit they did it. ? I made a comment talking about how brash they were in their cheating yesterday, but this is just 'wow'. They've not even tried to hide the fact that they didn't even try to hide the money, this is like an episode of Americas Dubmest Criminals.
The blatantness of it all means serious, serious questions have to be asked of the Premier League and what it is they actually do, to ensure clubs aren't cheating, because if it wasn't for Rui Pinto handing over 5 hard drives worth of hacked information, this probably never would have come to light.
01 Oct 2026 15:18:18
I think this is what the PL meant by retrofitting the evidence to support the explanation. Or in otherwords. This is what a lie looks like.
01 Oct 2026 19:54:00
This wouldn't save city any way. The panel has already taken it into account. Given they never declared it to the Premier League as an associated party payment to begin with they're trying to say we didn't break this rule. We broke this rule.
But the panels already considered this in their verdict.
{Ed666's Note - not disputing that mate and I’m not saying they won’t be found guilty but when you go to court anything’s possible. Remember OJ Simpson?
01 Oct 2026 21:09:36
They won't go to a criminal court Ed666 this is not a legal matter.
The only thing they might do is go to the High Court claiming that the Premier League's process was biased but given that they agreed to the rules themselves and proceeded to systematically break every single one of them I can't see the High Court getting involved.
Although I do hear they are quite partial to the odd back hander so you never know.
{Ed666's Note - I personally feel this will go to the highest courts in the land. This will take years of litigation unless there’s a compromise that Man City take a lesser punishment for not dragging the whole process out. Will they do that? Your guess is as good as mine..if they think they’re innocent why heel?
01 Oct 2026 20:30:32
Was just a general reply ed not to you specifically about going to court. I get what you mean by OJ.
I don't think this would go to a crown court for a jury though as it's not a serious matter in that regards for any Clancy type activists.
I just can't get how city think this is a winning strategy. They still know it fails the associated parties rules. They had the chance to bring this up in their original rebuttal to call on 3 parties and other witnesses and evidence. They did not do this. And as above they panel already are aware of it and considered it.
Just feels they're delaying this. Probably hoping to get to Jan 27 transfer window.
{Ed666's Note - it doesn’t matter mate City have lots of money and can fight as long as it takes. If they feel they are innocent why not appeal and drag it out.
02 Oct 2026 01:04:35
@Rios, it will go to a criminal court if the £ 830, 000, 000.00 (or parts thereof ) are proved to have 'by-passed' applicable taxes.
02 Oct 2026 00:53:01
Fraud on any scale is treated as a serious matter but in this scale it's certainly very serious.
The problem is the chairman is a UK recognised diplomat, the PM is on their payroll supporting them and casting doubt on their guilt and the UK is reliant on foreign investment.
I can see them getting away with it.
{Ed078's Note - I can't see them getting away with this.
02 Oct 2026 01:09:37
If ever we needed Ed02 to dumb down the football financials for us . Still very much missed.