By the same token, is it still innocent until proven guilty? Not referring to this instance but in terms of the owner. There seems to be a general acceptance that he is guilty of all of the things that have been posted on here but as of yet, we don’t seem to have had any clear evidence produced. As someone suggested previously, if there were local businesses who were not being paid, surely someone would have come forward by now with some ITK information at least? Like one or two others, I’d rather wait to hear the ‘FACTS’ before shouting for his head.
Hasn't he been proven guilty thus the punishment has been given out? He may well appeal that he believed he didn't break rules but by the letter of the EFL rules he has not complied and therefore is guilty. He may get off through a loophole or technicality but that's not really the same thing. "Sorry officer I didn't see that the speed limit here is only 50 when I was zooming along at 80".
Isn’t it also possible that the charge itself is subject to a technicality, if in fact Villa were in agreement that we didn’t need to make the payment at the allotted time and we have documentary evidence of that? In which case, are we actually guilty of anything?
Plea bargaining. Happens up here regular and sometimes, as you say,it's the lesser of two evils,especially when there are multiple charges and you're offered an easy way out before the sheriff gets a good look at it...
Already explained this. If you're happy to see the owner fail whilst he's in charge of the club, there's currently no way for this to happen without the club suffering. Perhaps I'm wrong and you want to see Acun succeed? I know I do, because otherwise we end up in situations like this. I'll say it again though, the number of posts from a few laying into him and towards posters that don't ipso facto want him hung drawn and quartered (at least, yet) make this thread read like a car crash.
