Transfer Embargo

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

What’s gonna happen

  • Temporary blip

  • Complete ****ing collapse

  • It’ll all be ok

  • Relegation


Results are only viewable after voting.
If you're found guilty is it still 'allegedly'?

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.
 
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".
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk
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".

People who are innocent sometimes plead guilty because its easier and less risk.
 
Back it up then. Provide a single post by me in this thread where I’ve wanted the club to fail or where I’ve been happy that we’re now in a three-window fee restriction.

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk