PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Moss Side's Finest said:
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.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell Nick is a massive dickhead and Stefan had him for breakfast.
 
manimanc said:
Take him to the cleaners, call the idiot out.

It's about time someone stopped this prick in his tracks as he is toxic with his views on city.

Do it mate.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t.

What Stefan and anyone else associated with our club and/or our fan base should do is completely fucking ignore him. Don’t engage him, don’t do interviews with him, don’t tweet him.

Starve the little **** of oxygen and attention.
 
Cobwebcat said:
Hang on a minute blues @projectriver is a big boy. It’s not up to any of us to tell Stefan how he should handle things. He has made his point and the rest is nothing to do with us.

I‘m surprised that Nick, who came over surprisingly measured in the main during the podcast, should now turn into a keyboard warrior making some seemingly outlandish claims against Stefan in writing. It really is a shame and absolutely detracts from an interesting discussion.

I‘m annoyed for Stefan. He doesn’t deserve it.
Click to expand...
How are any of you surprised?

It had it written all over it in big fucking neon letters that Harris would do this.
 
mosssideblue said:
Lots of info on here which I don’t really understand so, in layman’s terms, are we in the shit or not?
Click to expand...
I can 100% confirm that we are absolutely not in the shit regarding certain aspects that may or may not have been discussed at length in the PL investigation, of which our lawyers know almost next to nothing and everything about, thereby proving our innocence regarding the original claim which hasn't yet been confirmed to be false, pending a full hearing of which we can catagorically deny may or may not turn out in our favour, depending on full interpretation of the results of the findings that could show that our dealings were above board at the time when they were legally acceptable yet could contrarily be seen as being underhanded, although this has not been confirmed.
 
Metal Biker said:
I can 100% confirm that we are absolutely not in the shit regarding certain aspects that may or may not have been discussed at length in the PL investigation, of which our lawyers know almost next to nothing and everything about, thereby proving our innocence regarding the original claim which hasn't yet been confirmed to be false, pending a full hearing of which we can catagorically deny may or may not turn out in our favour, depending on full interpretation of the results of the findings that could show that our dealings were above board at the time when they were legally acceptable yet could contrarily be seen as being underhanded, although this has not been confirmed.
Click to expand...
Finally some clarity.
 
Metal Biker said:
I can 100% confirm that we are absolutely not in the shit regarding certain aspects that may or may not have been discussed at length in the PL investigation, of which our lawyers know almost next to nothing and everything about, thereby proving our innocence regarding the original claim which hasn't yet been confirmed to be false, pending a full hearing of which we can catagorically deny may or may not turn out in our favour, depending on full interpretation of the results of the findings that could show that our dealings were above board at the time when they were legally acceptable yet could contrarily be seen as being underhanded, although this has not been confirmed.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell Biker. I was confused before, don’t do this to me please
 
The podcast must have passed me by completely because I don't have an x account and the platform is now inaccessible to me(thanks Elon).

I have just listened to it, but regarding Nick's tweets shared here first. It was surprising to me, how differently he behaves on twitter vs the podcast. Which strengthens my belief that twitter just isn't healthy for some people. It might not just be as simple as City being successful on and off the pitch, that has shot his bitter mind into pieces. Maybe, it's his relationship with the platform he likes to represent himself on, as some hero to football too. Maybe, someone close to him could try and suggest he comes off there for a while(and stop obsessing about City ,while he's at it, but we're just too good and too massive to ignore now, so that wont happen). Then again, maybe that's just who he is behind the mask?

His comments directed towards Stefan via twitter afterwards are that of a childish troll. Pointless snide remarks, that get his argument nowhere, derision, emoji spam and "LOL" to finish off his masterpieces(has to be in caps, to show how much FUN he's totally having... not fuming at all).
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
The podcast must have passed me by completely because I don't have an x account and the platform is now inaccessible to me(thanks Elon).

I have just listened to it, but regarding Nick's tweets shared here first. It was surprising to me, how differently he behaves on twitter vs the podcast. Which strengthens my belief that twitter just isn't healthy for some people. It might not just be as simple as City being successful on and off the pitch that has shot his bitter mind into pieces. Maybe it's his relationship with the platform he likes to represent himself on as some hero to football too. Maybe someone close to him could try and suggest he comes off there for a while(and stop obsessing about City while he's at it but we're just too good and too massive to ignore now, so that wont happen). Then again, maybe that's just who he is behind the mask?

His comments directed towards Stefan via twitter afterwards are that of a childish troll. Pointless snide remarks that get his argument nowhere, derision, emoji spam and "LOL" to finish off his masterpieces(has to be in caps to show how much FUN he's totally having... not fuming at all).
Click to expand...
It's called cowardice, pure and simple.

Deleting tweets proves he's a coward, and an unstable one at that.
 
Metalartin said:
The podcast must have passed me by completely because I don't have an x account and the platform is now inaccessible to me(thanks Elon).

I have just listened to it, but regarding Nick's tweets shared here first. It was surprising to me, how differently he behaves on twitter vs the podcast. Which strengthens my belief that twitter just isn't healthy for some people. It might not just be as simple as City being successful on and off the pitch that has shot his bitter mind into pieces. Maybe it's his relationship with the platform he likes to represent himself on as some hero to football too. Maybe someone close to him could try and suggest he comes off there for a while(and stop obsessing about City while he's at it but we're just too good and too massive to ignore now, so that wont happen). Then again, maybe that's just who he is behind the mask?

His comments directed towards Stefan via twitter afterwards are that of a childish troll. Pointless snide remarks that get his argument nowhere, derision, emoji spam and "LOL" to finish off his masterpieces(has to be in caps to show how much FUN he's totally having... not fuming at all).
Click to expand...

It's also available on Spotify btw

 
As for the podcast itself. So he referenced Colin(prestwichblue) as a whistleblower and Delooney as some respected world expert on football finance?... If you didn't know any better, you might mistake him for someone who knows what he's talking about. Those that do, can see it's all smoke and mirrors(and wishful thinking). Too many mistakes: "City said this" when they didn't. "This has to mean x" when it doesn't. Failing to see the point being made to him(or refusing to). I suppose that can happen in any debate, if we are fair but he does it so often, that I suspect it's deliberate.

Other than his own obsession with it, along with the fact that he wants people to read his article and pat him on the back. Why is he making out that his opinion on what the Etihad deal is/was worth, matters? That's the first argument I would have made. FMV/inflated sponsorship deals not being anything to do with any of UEFA's allegations and likely the PL's either, is perfectly valid too though. The debate was supposed to be about the case and too much time was wasted on something that there isn't an argument for, or UEFA and the PL would have definitely made it, way before now.

Nick was referencing the CAS report like he's some sort of expert on it(I don't remember reading the Etihad deal was adjusted 3 times at all, only once to £67m in 2012/13). I suspect, had Stefan have known he would veer off track on this so much, he'd have refreshed his memory on extracts like this to bring up:

The CFCBs Evaluations Of Etihad and Etisalat.jpg

Note that says, that is the range of valuations that UEFA's own CFCB got back on those deals. Unless City were lying to CAS with this submission(which UEFA could have easily challenged in that case), then they didn't have to go off and find their own auditors contradicting UEFA's valuations, like PSG did. Etisalat was only slightly higher than the highest valuation, not enough to make a claim that 'they had to be related party'. Which City were adamant they were not.

I have tried to find UEFA's offiicial statements on the 2014 investigations for PSG and City and/or the charge sheets that resulted from them, to show the contrast but I can't find them anywhere. All I can find is the settlement agreements but you can tell by the press reactions to the CFCB's decisions that came before them, they were different.

PSG failed FFP because their QTA deal was deemed inflated, otherwise they would have met the break even limit. City failed FFP simply because they didn't meet the break even limit on the balance sheet. Which City argued, was down to the wage exemption clause, that was altered by UEFA, after they had already accounted for it on their balance sheet.

As for Nick's armchair valuations. I haven't read his article yet but I suspect he's pointing at different clubs, under different circumstances(date signed, length, current position, future projections), with less facets to their deals(shirts, stadium, training campus etc), in different leagues that don't have the same value. I did a comparison myself and came to a different conclusion to him ages ago, so I won't repeat myself. Here's a link to that post in the media thread instead.

I also suspect Arsenal's 2004 deal("£5m" he muttered) is being heavily relied on. Stefan was right to point out Arsenal signed themselves up to a lengthy stadium naming rights agreement(15 years is a long time) which quickly became undervalued(if it wasn't already). That likely happened(negotiated late 2003-early 2004? vs 2011) before the funding was secured(announced Feb 2004) via hefty bank loans, so that they could start building it. If Wenger agreeing to stay, has been cited as a stipulation from the banks, before approving those loans. How would securing a long term sponsor, not also be a concern for the banks too? They were clearly eager to get the funds secured, to begin building ASAP. So there's your reason they ended up selling themselves short. Do not blame other clubs' bad business sense on City or it's ownership. As our Chairman once said(ish).

Nick's just wasting his time trying to make anything of it. The auditors UEFA used, are probably same ones the PL would turn to, if they had any concerns about FMV and we already know what they thought. Is FMV even a thing anymore in PSR?
 
Last edited:
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