PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

Flounced, not bounced!

Ahh, decided to jump before he was pushed then. Looking back I'm getting the impression that his spelling and grammar was gradually getting worse, perhaps it's as well for his own mental well being.

 

[Chris in London]

Have we not been at a similar point to Harry being in danger for e.g.

Sterling booed at every ground, attacked in road rage incident & racially abused at Chelsea.

Foden & his family attached at the boxing.

Coach & fans attacked outside Anfield

Pint pot filled with coins launched at fans.

The list could go on but there is an element of those vilified by the media have been attacked & it’s considered justified.

I think you can probably test this by asking how many other clubs have had team members attacked when out and about on multiple occasions

AND have had their team bus attacked on their way to a game

AND have had one of their number racially abused while on the pitch

AND have had one of their fans significantly injured by a pint pot filled with coins from being launched at them

Plainly these actions are conducted by individuals who are not thinking right. Plainly other clubs might have suffered on or two of these sorts of issues. I don’t know, but I don’t know of any club that has received the volume of physical and non physical abuse we have, nor can I think of another club that has received the volume of adverse media comment we have. I would however be very surprised if there wasn’t a connection between the two things.

 

[M18CTID]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

Difficult to argue with any of that.

People may be surprised that one of our directors didn’t see it that way though. As much as I like her (she’s left the club now so I’m sure everyone can guess who I’m talking about), back in 2017 a few of us had a meeting with her to discuss an idea we had for a drop down banner and whether the club would be comfortable with us doing it. It was basically the original version of the Muppet Show banner which we eventually had done when UEFA banned us for 2 years, only instead of various UEFA officials being featured, it would have various journalists and pundits who had slagged us off down the years.

VK (not Vincent Kompany) felt that it wasn’t subtle enough and that there are other ways to skin a cat and get out point across. She wasn’t outright saying we couldn’t do it but she also said that there was no more bias against City in the media than there is against any other high profile club which surprised everyone in attendance.

 

[Dirty Harry]

but she also said that there was no more bias against City in the media than there is against any other high profile club which surprised everyone in attendance.

Gobsmacked by that, opposition fans I know openly say we get more than a rough ride in comparison.
Never had any axe to grind with Vicky Kloss, but if that was here genuine view, I’m glad she’s gone.

 

[TonyM]

Have we not been at a similar point to Harry being in danger for e.g.

Sterling booed at every ground, attacked in road rage incident & racially abused at Chelsea.

Foden & his family attached at the boxing.

Coach & fans attacked outside Anfield

Pint pot filled with coins launched at fans.

The list could go on but there is an element of those vilified by the media have been attacked & it’s considered justified.

Don't forget Walker's willy. Poor thing.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Remember how many Scousers came in peace before the CAS verdict, it didn’t take long for the mask to slip. No sign of them since Ilkay broke them.

Sad day for football, remember?

Don't ever forget what that Gnasher bastard said about our verdict.

A bit like his team, now going through midlife crisis.

Dying his hair, having his eyes lasered, the teeth.

But fooling no-one...

 

[Dirty Harry]

Sad day for football, remember?

Don't ever forget what that Gnasher bastard said about our verdict.

A bit like his team, now going through midlife crisis.

Dying his hair, having his eyes lasered, the teeth.

But fooling no-one...

All ‘fur coat and no knickers’ from bottom to bottom that lot.

 

[Gordyola]

Yes, this seems to be the position. But surely the fact that we cooperated after the High Court ruling on the matter would be relevant in terms of deciding the punishment? Even the CAS agreed that we deserved a fairly heavy fine for not cooperating in those proceedings, but the circumstances then were quite different.

Then, we expressly declined to cooperate, telling UEFA we didn't trust their process, and waited until we went before an independent tribunal before producing relevant evidence. Here, we told the PL that we didn't think they were entitled to ask for what they had, no doubt on legal advice. It turned out that the High Court agreed with them and not us. If we cooperated in full once we had clarification of what we were legally entitled to ask for, then it would seem to mitigate City's position significantly, wouldn't it?

I also note, and believe, TH's comment to the effect that we've provided the PL with a welter of material. In MCFC's own statement, the club made reference to the "vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with". The point in this regard that I (like others) find hard to square in my own mind is why, in this event, the PL has charged us.

We've already run through the theoretical possibilities (either they have convincing evidence we're not aware of or they've given in when pressured by the redshirts to follow this course). To those, Stefan added another - that we're incorrect in our analysis with regard to the standard of proof.

If we speculate on the point that they did so having folded in the face of pressure, then I think a further issue worth raising here is the role of the media. Back in a previous lifetime, I worked for six years in the UK central government, and I've seen how ostensibly sensible and professional people can sometimes act in ways that seem to run completely counter to those qualities with a view to avoiding public criticism.

With regard to the Der Spiegel emails, I don't dispute that they showed City in a wholly negative light and were extremely damaging. Comments and discussions were committed to email that never should have been (to say nothing of the questions the episode raised with regard to our IT security, but that's a separate issue). However, Der Spiegel's presentation of the hacked documents was IMO highly selective and sensational, resulting it it being misleading to a layman reader. Intentionally so, I suspect.

The British press's resultant coverage was, however, utterly hysterical. I understand that this was a big story and it quite clearly raised serious questions for the club to answer. I have no problem with it being reported as such. But the rush to condemn the club - and the general attendant glee at having the opportunity to do so - went far, far beyond any notion of fair and impartial reporting. The only mainstream media figure with any sympathy for us was Martin Samuel, and even he assumed from the off that we were guilty.

People label this kind of thinking as paranoid, but there are journalists out there who've admitted to pushing in their reporting a line of argument that's aimed at discrediting City. Miguel Delaney and Nick Harris have both been quite open on social media about having done (and continuing to do) so, while The Guardian seems very clearly to me to have an anti-City editorial stance.

In this context, it matters little why they do this. The fact is that it sets an agenda and the rest of the football press pack follows. These people have minimal knowledge or expertise when it comes to the off-field aspects of the game, so when the prevailing narrative is set, they follow. That's what's happened with City, IMO. A few have stirred the pot and succeeded in creating a febrile environment in which MCFC are acknowledged as cheats so punishment is expected.

My contention is that, in a context where the PL has faced considerable pressure from within on the part of the redshirts to act against City, there's been considerable pressure from without, too. We'll gain an idea of what the truth is in due course, I suppose, but for now I don't find it inconceivable that the media attitude could have influenced the PL to a certain, contributory degree (I'm not saying it could be the main factor).

After all, I think that few people when taking a decision with ramifications that interest many people want to find that decision widely and publicly lambasted. And a decision on the part of the PL to decline to charge City would have been met with vituperative condemnation from the usual suspects and, most likely, from far wider quarters than that.

Great stuff as usual
IIRC We went to CAS before the "big case" to try and get the investigation closed down due to the leaks from UEFA Investigator Yves Leterme CAS ruled that they weren't able to judge The fine for non-cooperation was reduced from 30M to 10M as CAS somewhat agreed that City has a case regarding the leaks but as they had admitted the fact they had no choice but to uphold the fine

 

[Gordyola]

Gobsmacked by that, opposition fans I know openly say we get more than a rough ride in comparison.
Never had any axe to grind with Vicky Kloss, but if that was here genuine view, I’m glad she’s gone.

Vicky was only able to carry out the instructions of the hierarchy, she was a paid employee and not the maker of policy She left the job due to the 24/7 nature of it and need timeout never had a holiday that wasn't interrupted by City matters in all her time Shes a dedicated City fan btw

 

[Dirty Harry]

Vicky was only able to carry out the instructions of the hierarchy, she was a paid employee and not the maker of policy She left the job due to the 24/7 nature of it and need timeout never had a holiday that wasn't interrupted by City matters in all her time Shes a dedicated City fan btw

Like I said “ if that was HER genuine view”.