Jump to content

Manchester United


BOF

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, VillaParkAvenue said:

Bloomberg now reporting a Qatar bid for Man U is imminent and will happen this week. Bloomberg don’t make these kind of things up so probably true.

Now the only hope is Uefa standing firm on the rules against owning two clubs in European cups.

They already allow Redbull to own two Europa League teams (who played each other a few seasons back). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, VillaParkAvenue said:

Bloomberg now reporting a Qatar bid for Man U is imminent and will happen this week. Bloomberg don’t make these kind of things up so probably true.

Now the only hope is Uefa standing firm on the rules against owning two clubs in European cups.

League will just be a competition between three dodgy countries throwing their oil money around. How long goes everyone stick around for with this situation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

They already allow Redbull to own two Europa League teams (who played each other a few seasons back). 

 

Yes, they allowed it on the basis the two clubs could show they were controlled by different people in terms of day-to-day operations. This is obviously not going to be an issue for Qatar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Genie said:

The PL have made a right mess of this because they allowed the City purchase, and the Newcastle purchase so they can’t say another similar bid for United is not OK (even though they know it’s not legit).

 

Exactly. A friend of mine who is a Manure fan already slamming Citeh has suddenly got real quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

In regards to Mason Greenwood, it seems being cleared of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law just isn't enough anymore. The court of public opinion can sometimes seem almost tyrannical. 

Grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

In regards to Mason Greenwood, it seems being cleared of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law just isn't enough anymore. The court of public opinion can sometimes seem almost tyrannical. 

He hasn’t been found guilty but he most certainly has been “cleared of any wrongdoing”. The victim has declined to go forward for whatever reason and without her they can’t proceed.

We all heard that audio recording. It’s pretty clear what he was trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sheepyvillian said:

In regards to Mason Greenwood, it seems being cleared of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law just isn't enough anymore. The court of public opinion can sometimes seem almost tyrannical. 

Listen to the audio 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, LondonLax said:

They already allow Redbull to own two Europa League teams (who played each other a few seasons back). 

 

Technically Red Bull don't own Leipzig.  German clubs have the 50 + 1 rule where members own the majority, the members of Leipzig just all happen to be Red Bull shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

“Cleared of any wrongdoing” has a funny definition for some people

"In the eyes of the law". You did read that part didn't you? Then again, probably not. 

I merely made an observation about the role of society today in certain criminal matters. And from some of the reactions on here that observation is somewhat validated. 

I'm sure the CPS listened to the audio, numerous times, and yet, that still wasn't evidence enough for him to be taken to trial. Apparently, witnesses could no longer be relied upon and new information had come to light. So there's another side to this story, which, it seems, a lot of people just don't want to hear. I wasn't defending anyone's actions, once again, just making an observation about the role of the court of public opinion today.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

He hasn’t been found guilty but he most certainly has been “cleared of any wrongdoing”. The victim has declined to go forward for whatever reason and without her they can’t proceed.

We all heard that audio recording. It’s pretty clear what he was trying to do.

We're talking very serious allegations. Trust me, for them to drop the whole thing before trial tells another story. But a lot of people are just not going to accept that, and that was the point I was making. I get it, but that doesn't mean we all have to go along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

"In the eyes of the law". You did read that part didn't you? Then again, probably not. 

I merely made an observation about the role of society today in certain criminal matters. And from some of the reactions on here that observation is somewhat validated. 

I'm sure the CPS listened to the audio, numerous times, and yet, that still wasn't evidence enough for him to be taken to trial. Apparently, witnesses could no longer be relied upon and new information had come to light. So there's another side to this story, which, it seems, a lot of people just don't want to hear. I wasn't defending anyone's actions, once again, just making an observation about the role of the court of public opinion today.

 

Grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

We're talking very serious allegations. Trust me, for them to drop the whole thing before trial tells another story. But a lot of people are just not going to accept that, and that was the point I was making. I get it, but that doesn't mean we all have to go along with it.

What are even basing that on? It's not a question of trusting you. Every case is different and these kinds of domestic cases bring another level of complexity because you're dealing with what a man and woman have done to each other when the bedroom doors are closed but people have heard the recording for themselves. I notice that you haven't addressed the recording in any of your replies so far, perhaps you think it's fake, don't believe it's him or that she's in some way to blame for it?

I'm normally with you btw that there's 2 sides to a story but when you have something in the public domain that's as bad as that I think that you really should acknowledge it before leaping to his defence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â