Just seen PB on Twitter demolishing Tony Evans into submission. His reply ‘Ok cool’ was definitely a towel being thrown in, the fight had barely started!
One of the problems with a lot of these journalists, including Tony Evans, is that they seem unable to get their heads round the fact that it's quite possible for City to take money from publicly-owned Abu Dhabi companies and remain within the FFP rules. And, despite claims of a "smoking gun" proving the club to be in breach of the rules, there's no such thing. There's lots of evidence that we were seeking to circumvent rules, but that's a different matter. Every day all around the globe, perfectly reputable companies look for ways to pursue their business objectives in ways that don't breach the letter of inconvenient regulatory regimes.
City have done a number of things to this end that our critics disapprove of, as they're perfectly entitled to. We tried to play fast and loose with the concept of related-party transactions and attempted dodges with regard to image rights, for instance. However, those matters were dealt with in the settlement agreement back in 2014. And while some might view our receiving money from state companies in the UAE as breaching the spirit of the rules, this is a bullshit concept that counts for sweet fuck all in the real world. If UEFA or the PL want their rules to ban that kind of sponsorship, draft them so that they expressly say that. Otherwise, we're entitled to find whatever workarounds the current text of the rules allows.
So far, we can ascertain from the CAS hearing that our accounting records indicate we've done so successfully. No material in the public domain, including the latest Nick Harris damp squib, actually contradicts that. No information available at present indicates a sensible basis for us to be charged, but we're subjected to a febrile and hysterical media debate that pays no regard to normal standards of evidence or proof. With rival clubs no doubt egging the investigators on in the background, the biggest threat City have to deal with is the potential reluctance of the PL to drop the case for PR reasons.
In other words, there's a risk that the PL will act not on the basis of a rational analysis of the totality of the case, but instead out of a fear of attracting specious criticism for "letting City get away with it". The sad thing from our point of view is that any such criticism would come from people who have no more understanding of the processes and issues involved than they have of the intricacies of brain surgery - and that includes Nick Harris. If (quite a big 'if', regrettably) the PL has integrity and balls, our enemies won't be allowed to prevail.
EDIT - Just to add: City didn't accept that the matters covered in the settlement agreement constituted breaches of the rules. Most of what we tried to do was via methods commonly used in international non-football businesses, often within international groups of companies (and we're part of one). Had these issues been litigated and not settled, it's perfectly feasible that we could have prevailed.
