I read it ages ago mate... it's another problem and it claims to be new evidence. I'm not thick I know the correct position is to say "I don't know" anything either side of that needs to be backed up by evidence to convince me .. so have you got evidence that this is not new evidence? if you do please present it and I'll be happy to be convinced
I don't believe you've responded with this it's the same bloody argument we don't know you've also made accusations and assertions that are not correct
You read it ages ago? Therefore not new evidence? This was literally reported about 3-4 weeks ago. We even have a Hairy Hands thread.
this is not the same report this is new ie the last 24 hrs if it was the same they would have sent it last time.. if the story is true it's new
I'll try another explanation if I tell you there a biscuit in the tin you would have no idea whether there was or not a biscuit in it until you looked .. you could be positive or negative about whether the tin contains a biscuit, but neither attitude will have any impact whatsoever on whether there really is a biscuit in the tin
Yes but if you always go to teh biscuit tin thinking I'll open it even though I doubt there is a biscuit then that is negative
No it's just the correct position to say I don't know if there's a biscuit in the tin unless you know for certain ... it's not negative it's just the correct answer
The evidence is that presented to a French Court. The Premier League has been passed the evidence, but they are not a Court of law. They are bound by precedent. The precedent is the decision of the French Court. I really wish people would understand how due process works. This evidence is inconsequential.
But there is no point worrying about there not being a biscuit in the tin. Worry about it once you know there is no biscuit in the tin. That is the point. The first is being pessimistic and the second is being realistic.
It was presented to a French Court of law last year and rejected. The legal documents relate to that. It is the evidence. It is evidence that establishes that Arabs at has links to several middle Eastern countries, including Qatar and UAE.
worrying or not makes no difference to whether something is or is not ... this is the same logic.... I give up
Is it through yet. It’s honestly 3 days away now. Or 4. Actually doesn’t the NDA expire this week. That’s not me wumming. Just think that’s the case right?
I already knew there was evidence presented during this case and I'm.not trying to be awkward, but how do you know this is the same evidence? why not send it 2 weeks ago if it wasn't something new?
I would expect that the NDA’s will last until the deal is done one way or the other. Even afterwards most parts of the NDA will still apply. The NDA won’t necessarily be for a set period eg 3weeks as opposed to linking it in with stages of the Contract terms eg completion.
