PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not my job to tell anyone else what to do, but there is simply no point engaging with a **** like this in any way whatsoever. Absolutely none.

It’s like joining RAWK as a City fan and expecting any reasonable and rational level of debate on the subject of the 115 charges.
Click to expand...

Harris has employed the Joey Barton approach of trying to be as outrageous as possible while appealing to the lowest common denominator.

It’s the last bastion to remaining relevant.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
If there was a whistle blower, we will have acted with the knowledge that they had one and plead guilty had they had any evidence. We haven’t done, which leads me to believe there isn’t one.

The email apparently was unearthed after CAS, but unless the PL can prove that our owner has directly paid Etihad’s sponsorship bill to us, then it proves nothing and Etihad don’t need to show their books to the committee. Again, if they had the evidence, we wouldn’t have plead not guilty. This again makes me believe that isn’t enough evidence to convict.

I could be wrong, but that’s my take.
Click to expand...
Why do Etihad not have to show their books?
Would they not actually be freely available to get?
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
I'm about halfway through this podcast.

Harris talks about potentially whistleblowers coming forward, when saying the PL must have something big up their sleeve if they brought the 115 charges, knowing how it went with CAS.

The other thing is about the Simon Pearce email, which wasn't revealed until after CAS.

What do we think of these two points?
Click to expand...

The "whistleblower" appears to be a reference to Stefan himself. Interestingly, in his tweets Harris both refers to 'multiple sources' at City and refers to his 'whistleblower' in the singular. So Harris seems to be in some confusion himself as to what a whistleblower is and just how many of them he is in contact with.

On the Pearce email, Stefan made the point in the podcast that Simon Pearce will have to answer for his email in the light of what he told CAS (and vice versa) and he will either explain it to the tribunal's satisfaction or he won't.

The wider point Stefan also made, and in my view the more telling one, is that these cases don't tend to turn on a single email. What is necessary is for the tribunal to make up its mind on the basis of the overall weight of evidence. In this case, for instance, even if the email points in one direction, the fact that both City's audited accounts and - crucially - Etihad's audited accounts record the full sponsorship amount (which is precisely, as I understand it, what both sets of accounts show and both accounts are consistent with each other) that might be said to have far more weight. This is because the conclusion that both sets of accounts are knowingly false requires high-level collusion between two global companies, and of course the government of Abu Dhabi, is not something you would usually see being established on flimsy evidence.

Besides, it seems to me that the email supports City's case as much as anything else. There is a contract (somewhere) signed on behalf of both companies saying 'Etihad will pay City £X and City will provide Y advertising services in return." The email seems to relate purely to the source of those funds, but it does not detract from the essential point that the contractual liability to pay City is Etihad's, not that of the AD government. Assuming that to be a genuine contract, the PL's case (on this issue) ends at that point. It is irrelevant that Etihad find the sums to pay that from their own reserves, from a rights issue, from loans from the directors or from a hand out from the Abu Dhabi government. They have entered into a legally binding contractual obligation to pay X in return for Y and they could have been sued if they had refused to perform their obligations under that contract.

That is precisely what City's accounts show, and (as I understand it) it is precisely that which the PL have to show was untrue, and known to be untrue when City signed off their accounts.

Good luck with that, guys.
 
Last edited:
Prophet of Doom said:
Harris is doing whatever he can to drum up subscribers for his website which has basically been stillborn.

He’s gone on a Podcast which allowed him a platform to plug his substack and bizarrely remained virtually mute for the entirety.

Last night and this morning was typical of him. Try and stir the pot with lies and libel in the vain hope or drumming up a few more subscribers.

He’s ended up being mocked, possibly sued, and committed the cardinal sin of any journalist and outed what he considered a historic source.
Click to expand...
I think he is probably losing subscribers at this point
 
Chris in London said:
The "whistleblower" appears to be a reference to Stefan himself. Interestingly, in his tweets Harris both refers to 'multiple sources' at City and refers to his 'whistleblower' in the singular. So Harris seems to be in some confusion himself as to what a whistleblower is and just how many of them he is in contact with.

On the Pearce email, Stefan made the point in the podcast that Simon Pearce will have to answer for his email in the light of what he told CAS (and vice versa) and he will either explain it to the tribunal's satisfaction or he won't.

The wider point Stefan also made, and in my view the more telling one, is that these cases don't tend to turn on a single email. What is necessary is for the tribunal to make up its mind on the basis of the overall weight of evidence. In this case, for instance, even if the email points in one direction, the fact that both City's audited accounts and - crucially - Etihad's audited accounts record the full sponsorship amount (which is precisely, as I understand it, what both sets of accounts show and both accounts are consistent with each other) that might be said to have far more weight. This is because the conclusion that both sets of accounts are knowingly false requires high-level collusion between two global companies, and of course the government of Abu Dhabi, is not something you would usually see being established on flimsy evidence.

Besides, it seems to me that the email supports City's case as much as anything else. There is a contract (somewhere) signed on behalf of both companies saying 'Etihad will pay City £X and City will provide Y advertising services in return." The email seems to relate purely to the source of those funds, but it does not detract from the essential point that the contractual liability to pay City is Etihad's, not that of the AD government. Assuming that to be a genuine contract, the PL's case (on this issue) ends at that point. It is irrelevant that Etihad find the sums to pay that from their own reserves, from a rights issue, from loans from the directors or from a hand out from the Abu Dhabi government. They have entered into a legally binding contractual obligation to pay X in return for Y and they could have been sued if they had refused to perform their obligations under that contract.

That is precisely what City's accounts show, and (as I understand it) it is precisely that which the PL have to show was untrue, and known to be untrue when City signed off their accounts.

Good luck with that, guys.
Click to expand...
He can't really believe I am a whistleblower? I have no information at all and never even acted for them after July? 2007. I've never been an employee. It would be deranged to consider me even a source.

As for your main point, I completely agree and should have said that especially as it has been the key point all along!
 
Chris in London said:
The "whistleblower" appears to be a reference to Stefan himself. Interestingly, in his tweets Harris both refers to 'multiple sources' at City and refers to his 'whistleblower' in the singular. So Harris seems to be in some confusion himself as to what a whistleblower is and just how many of them he is in contact with.

On the Pearce email, Stefan made the point in the podcast that Simon Pearce will have to answer for his email in the light of what he told CAS (and vice versa) and he will either explain it to the tribunal's satisfaction or he won't.

The wider point Stefan also made, and in my view the more telling one, is that these cases don't tend to turn on a single email. What is necessary is for the tribunal to make up its mind on the basis of the overall weight of evidence. In this case, for instance, even if the email points in one direction, the fact that both City's audited accounts and - crucially - Etihad's audited accounts record the full sponsorship amount (which is precisely, as I understand it, what both sets of accounts show and both accounts are consistent with each other) that might be said to have far more weight. This is because the conclusion that both sets of accounts are knowingly false requires high-level collusion between two global companies, and of course the government of Abu Dhabi, is not something you would usually see being established on flimsy evidence.

Besides, it seems to me that the email supports City's case as much as anything else. There is a contract (somewhere) signed on behalf of both companies saying 'Etihad will pay City £X and City will provide Y advertising services in return." The email seems to relate purely to the source of those funds, but it does not detract from the essential point that the contractual liability to pay City is Etihad's, not that of the AD government. Assuming that to be a genuine contract, the PL's case (on this issue) ends at that point. It is irrelevant that Etihad find the sums to pay that from their own reserves, from a rights issue, from loans from the directors or from a hand out from the Abu Dhabi government. They have entered into a legally binding contractual obligation to pay X in return for Y and they could have been sued if they had refused to perform their obligations under that contract.

That is precisely what City's accounts show, and (as I understand it) it is precisely that which the PL have to show was untrue, and known to be untrue when City signed off their accounts.

Good luck with that, guys.
Click to expand...
Very clear and a great summary.
 
projectriver said:
He can't really believe I am a whistleblower? I have no information at all and never even acted for them after July? 2007. I've never been an employee. It would be deranged to consider me even a source.

As for your main point, I completely agree and should have said that especially as it has been the key point all along!
Click to expand...
Deranged indeed.
 
Just listened to the podcast from start to finish. I listened with the sole aim of putting all of the history Nick has (for his twitter and media ramblings) to one side, so as not to bias my opinion of the debate.

At a very simple level, what I took from the debate was as follows;

- From Nick's self intro, it's clear that he sees himself as some sort of Clark Kent style hero journalist, trying to make a name for himself by overturning "dodgy owners" and unscrupulous characters everywhere. He seems so obsessed with that narrative, that he isn't one to let simple things like evidence or facts to the contrary get in his way.

- Whilst Stefan is a self confessed City fan (and hence will have an emotional attachment to the case), it was Nick who came across as the more emotionally attached party, at times it seemed to cause him to lose his composure in the debate and resort to repeating things Stefan had already disproved.

- Stefan seemed much more open minded to the potential that if City are proven guilty they should be punished. Whereas Nick went into the debate closed minded, in his view City are guilty and it's now just about finding the facts or narrative to suit this e.g. He was transfixed on Simon Pearce's email as a sole source of wrongdoing evidence, although Stefan has told him before and during the debate the reasons as to why legally any case cannot rely on emails alone, especially ones sent from outside of the UK.

- Nick continually used terminology which incorrectly implied that things that had been settled on previously were in fact admissions of guilt from city. Although Stefan continuously attempted to correct him, using his legal background, Nick seemed intent on believing his own version of the truth.

- Nick continously tryed to name drop people and CFG "insiders" in an attempt to validate his own opinions. This for me is where he sailed close to potential legal ramifications for himself e.g. Claiming he knew from insiders and other ITK that city had falsified Etihad funding and that city and UEFA had effectively colluded regarding the panel at CAS. Those are pretty serious allegations.

- In general Nick came across, relatively toned down, but also came across like an ex journalist at a large newspaper who's career sadly came to an end, now he's had to go it alone and sees the city case, and his involvement in proving us guilty as his saving grace both reputationally and financially.

I hope you read the above Nick, I've tried to keep it as subjective as possible, as I did on twitter when you banned me. Hopefully you will take this as feedback, it's not healthy or wise to tag your entire working life to obsessing over one goal. I hope you get more of the support and guidance you obviously need in life going forwards.
 
projectriver said:
He can't really believe I am a whistleblower? I have no information at all and never even acted for them after July? 2007. I've never been an employee. It would be deranged to consider me even a source.

As for your main point, I completely agree and should have said that especially as it has been the key point all along!
Click to expand...

I don't think he's referring to you as a whistleblower, he's been throwing that around for a few years now.

A cyinic would say it lends credibility to his accusations without him ever having to produce evidence of the person existing.
 
projectriver said:
He can't really believe I am a whistleblower? I have no information at all and never even acted for them after July? 2007. I've never been an employee. It would be deranged to consider me even a source.

As for your main point, I completely agree and should have said that especially as it has been the key point all along!
Click to expand...

It's interesting that he specifically, and one assumes quite deliberately, uses the word 'whistleblower.' When we think of whistleblowers, usually it is in the context of serious corruption or other major wrongdoing that some public-spirited person somewhere thinks should be made public. Just to take one instance, ITN have done some good work recently on a toxic sexist culture that exists within numerous fire services. The people who have put their heads (anonymously or otherwise) above the parapet in that respect might be regarded as genuine whistleblowers. Sometimes these people are the victims of that culture, other times they are first hand witnesses to it.

It is the fact that they have first hand evidence which they choose to put into the public domain for the public good that is however perhaps the crucial characteristic of the whistleblower.

You only need to look at the dates to realise what a stretch it is - well beyond breaking point - to describe you in those terms. Your involvement with City was as an advisor in the pre-Shinawatra era. Even assuming an advisor rather than an actual employee could be a whistleblower, the PL allegations concern matters that occurred years after any events of which it could be said you have first hand knowledge.

So why would Nick Harris choose the word 'whistleblower'? In my view it can only be to imbue his content with an air of authority and authenticity that is simply not there. He knows you are not a whistleblower in any conventional sense but chooses describe you as such nonetheless.

It is, in other words, dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
The "whistleblower" appears to be a reference to Stefan himself. Interestingly, in his tweets Harris both refers to 'multiple sources' at City and refers to his 'whistleblower' in the singular. So Harris seems to be in some confusion himself as to what a whistleblower is and just how many of them he is in contact with.

On the Pearce email, Stefan made the point in the podcast that Simon Pearce will have to answer for his email in the light of what he told CAS (and vice versa) and he will either explain it to the tribunal's satisfaction or he won't.

The wider point Stefan also made, and in my view the more telling one, is that these cases don't tend to turn on a single email. What is necessary is for the tribunal to make up its mind on the basis of the overall weight of evidence. In this case, for instance, even if the email points in one direction, the fact that both City's audited accounts and - crucially - Etihad's audited accounts record the full sponsorship amount (which is precisely, as I understand it, what both sets of accounts show and both accounts are consistent with each other) that might be said to have far more weight. This is because the conclusion that both sets of accounts are knowingly false requires high-level collusion between two global companies, and of course the government of Abu Dhabi, is not something you would usually see being established on flimsy evidence.

Besides, it seems to me that the email supports City's case as much as anything else. There is a contract (somewhere) signed on behalf of both companies saying 'Etihad will pay City £X and City will provide Y advertising services in return." The email seems to relate purely to the source of those funds, but it does not detract from the essential point that the contractual liability to pay City is Etihad's, not that of the AD government. Assuming that to be a genuine contract, the PL's case (on this issue) ends at that point. It is irrelevant that Etihad find the sums to pay that from their own reserves, from a rights issue, from loans from the directors or from a hand out from the Abu Dhabi government. They have entered into a legally binding contractual obligation to pay X in return for Y and they could have been sued if they had refused to perform their obligations under that contract.

That is precisely what City's accounts show, and (as I understand it) it is precisely that which the PL have to show was untrue, and known to be untrue when City signed off their accounts.

Good luck with that, guys.
Click to expand...
Anyone who is worried about the upcoming commission should just read this. Probably the best explanation on the most serious allegations the prem have thrown at City. Reading this you can see why Stefan and a few others on here think it’s impossible for the prem to prove that the Etihad or Etisalat deals are a sham.
 
@projectriver seems well within his rights to at the least demand an apology and retraction and could certainly take things further if Mr Harris doesn't watch out but as idiotic as it is for him to make these statements about an individual is it not more idiotic and dangerous to state as fact that the company that Stefan worked for was 'accused of , and CONVICTED of , complex corruption' .... say goodbye to your house Nick!
 
mcfc-a-ok said:
@projectriver seems well within his rights to at the least demand an apology and retraction and could certainly take things further if Mr Harris doesn't watch out but as idiotic as it is for him to make these statements about an individual is it not more idiotic and dangerous to state as fact that the company that Stefan worked for was 'accused of , and CONVICTED of , complex corruption' .... say goodbye to your house Nick!
Click to expand...

Was it Nick Harris that claimed City fans had smashed his windows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top