PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[wahablue]

Stefan,should have sauntered a cross the studio floor and cracked the bad mannered twat hard ,tell him not to interrupt whilst he was speaking,and to put up a hand if you wish to speak.Job done.

 

[supercity88]

I thought that was a positive update.

Not much to say on City. Stefan didn't entertain the Goldbridge nonsense.

Pushed hard on the fact the PL aren't some poor relation without the means to afford the finest legal representation. Simon tried to butt in, but the names involved on both sides makes it a silly argument. And he also made it quite clear that if it could be settled we probably would. Jordan tried to get a jibe in about our innocence, but innocent parties have settled before if commercially beneficial. We don't want the PL to spend the next 10 years fucking us over because we've made them lose face on this.

And helpfully the Forest fan who believes it's all corrupt and trying to ensure the final day is entertaining (with their appeal and case) showed that ultimately it doesn't fucking matter what any experts say - and shows that ultimately if we win we're still guilty and if we're cleared it's corrupt.

 

[Keeper!]

You know that's not true.

Everytime we have to explain about 'time barred' and 'armies of lawyers' and 'state owned' and '115 charges' etc. to a workmate or rival fan it becomes a little bit more difficult when we've just lost the latest round of the PR battle.

Toughen up, not sure why your worried about the opinion of a nobody, the only opinion that matter is the independent commision.

 

[DD]

Disagree, for once he had the upper hand, if you have irrefutable proof you don't settle.

There can never be irrefutable proof that you haven't given or received a proverbial backhander. I could say that I have proof that I have received one from somebody, if I had. However, I could not possibly prove that you haven't, at some point in the last ten years, slipped me an envelope full of cash.

'Settling' is something you do to make a case go away, and to save yourself a bucket load of time, cash and risk. The unfortunate reality is that guilt is no guarantee of being found guilty and innocence is no guarantee of being found innocent. So, sometimes, it makes sense to agree to disagree, settle, and move on.

What we likely have here is a case and a series of charges that cannot be proven one way or another. However, unlike in a court, the bar for proof in a hearing is a little lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt', and so both sides may wish to concede that a 'settlement' is the best way out for them both, with both believing they have saved face.

Much as we'd like to clear our name completely, I don't think that is possible. Much as they would like to prove our guilt, I don't think that's possible. Even if we were found innocent of all 115 charges (which we won't be, because some of the minor ones are likely stone-wallers), the reality is that the Red Tops, the likes of Jordan, and football fans at large will simply see it as an OJ Simpson or 'Stephen Lawrence five' botched investigation. We are absolutely guilty in their eyes, whatever the verdict. A settlement may reinforce that opinion, but it won't change it. An innocent verdict will never waiver their belief that we are guilty. In that sense, the smear has worked, so we simply must do what we must do to bring this matter to a close as soon as possible.

 

[blue for life]

Disagree, for once he had the upper hand, if you have irrefutable proof you don't settle.

Who says we are going to settle? That’s just a speculative option

 

[Mr Fraser]

I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):

"I don't really buy that. You're entitled to your opinion." Nice way of saying you're talking bollocks

 

[GortonBlue62]

Toughen up, not sure why your worried about the opinion of a nobody, the only opinion that matter is the independent commision.

I have already made that point; that ultimately, the only thing that matters is the IC outcome.

Toughen up? I never give a fucking millimetre when I have to defend us against the ignorant masses ;-)

 

[supercity88]

I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):

I wouldn't worry about any criticism from within this forum. You're doing a good job if you're invited back, because an alternative expert would probably play to the gallery and throw more dirt at us.

You can't undermine your credibility by being clearly biased. Jordan doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and despite claiming to know a thing or two about litigation still draws wild conclusions - I'm not sure how he thinks the PL can't compete in terms of legal representation. It takes a fair amount of talent and knowledge to become a KC and whilst money can buy you the very best, there are quite a few to pick from and they cost about the same!

For the rival fan, who actually listens to what is being said (probably not many sadly) you do a good job at clearing things up.

Jordan likes to suggest he doesn't have an issue with us as a club. But it's funny how he doesn't accept suggestions he ran Palace into administration. There's more to that story apparently, whilst clearly we're guilty as sin.

There are also a lot of city fans who need to grow a pair when it comes to this case and the semantics.

 

[vincent]

I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):

Jordan is simply repeating what Stefan has articulated and informed him on previous calls. He makes out that he is the expert. Funny.

 

[heslops barnet]

I’d personally prefer Foden’s mom.

Face for radio…..

 

[Keeper!]

Who says we are going to settle? That’s just a speculative option

Exactly, that's why I would be utterly shocked if we take any sort of settlement.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't normally watch Talksport but I will give it a look when @projectriver 's piece is up.

Will say this, though. It's a little unfair to expect him to defend City in an environment which isn't controllable, but one could expect mistruths to be corrected. No idea yet if that happened. I am sure he did his best to do that, difficult though it is.

Well, I put myself through it and a few points:

The first six minutes of that audio clip tell you everything about at which demographic the channel is aimed. I doubt they are interested in the minutiae of complicated legal cases.

I am not a fan of going on Talksport anyway, especially White and Jordan. You are on a hiding to nothing trying to clear up ten erroneous facts every ten seconds. The last time @projectriver was on Jordan seemed to be able to behave reasonably and listen occasionally, not so this time. He had his points to make and would talk over anyone to make them.

On the whole, I thought @projectriver did as well as anyone can in those circumstances.

Oh yes, last point. I thought the rumour was that the PL are trying to settle with the club, not that the club are trying to settle with the PL. An important difference and one that could have been made, imho.

Oh yes, one more. He threw the nation state accusation in in the middle of an interruption. That could have been challenged, though I accept the difficulty in correcting quick fire bullshit.

 

[LongsightM13]

I no longer take the piss out of Nick Harris because I'm legitimately concerned about his mental health.

Not a pisstake, pretty much a verbatim quote!

 

[Keeper!]

You know that's not true.

Everytime we have to explain about 'time barred' and 'armies of lawyers' and 'state owned' and '115 charges' etc. to a workmate or rival fan it becomes a little bit more difficult when we've just lost the latest round of the PR battle.

Again it's irrelevant, if the roles were reversed we would be saying exactly the same thing.

 

[Centurions]

If we except a settlement I personally think we are very foolish, and where has this rumour come from?

24 Hours ago the charges were going to be thrown out!!

Unless this is you starting it I wasn't aware there was one?

 

[supercity88]

Disagree, for once he had the upper hand, if you have irrefutable proof you don't settle.

You do if it's commercially beneficial. We don't need a so called "clean name". We're not a person walking the street trying to get a job. As long as sponsors and investors know the position then it's advantageous to just get it done, particularly if it stops the PL having the ability to come after us again in the future. We're guilty regardless of what happens. The PL are in real trouble regardless of what happens. Guilty and we've undermined the competition for a decade. Innocent and they'll be accused of corruption. Maybe they don't care about that so much. It's a better position to be in really.

But maybe we can be cleared of all the big ticket items and allow them to fine us for some accounting error that didn't mean much but still is worthy of a punishment to help pay their legal fees and put some money behind the bar for the Christmas do. I don't think that helps that much either, but if a few of the 115 charges stick then people may give them a bit more credit for due process.

 

[Keeper!]

Unless this is you starting it I wasn't aware there was one?

"According" to Talksport

 

[GortonBlue62]

I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):

I was listening on the radio, so missed the grimace.

It is very difficult, maybe impossible, as that's what he does for a living and despite his attempts to present himself as not anti City it is just an act he hates us with a passion.

They ask you one question and while you are trying to answer they interject loudly with another.

I suppose the correct response from you would be to match their levels of shit housery but I suspect you're too measured and too decent to do that.

What's required is your knowledge and a proper Manchester 'fuck off' attitude. Liam Borsan? Stefan Gallagher?

But realistically you needed to kick back with either "let me finish" or refute his current interjection as loudly and rudely as he made it.

 

[Keeper!]

You do if it's commercially beneficial. We don't need a so called "clean name". We're not a person walking the street trying to get a job. As long as sponsors and investors know the position then it's advantageous to just get it done, particularly if it stops the PL having the ability to come after us again in the future. We're guilty regardless of what happens. The PL are in real trouble regardless of what happens. Guilty and we've undermined the competition for a decade. Innocent and they'll be accused of corruption. Maybe they don't care about that so much. It's a better position to be in really.

But maybe we can be cleared of all the big ticket items and allow them to fine us for some accounting error that didn't mean much but still is worthy of a punishment to help pay their legal fees and put some money behind the bar for the Christmas do. I don't think that helps that much either, but if a few of the 115 charges stick then people may give them a bit more credit for due process.

I understand your point but this has gone on far too long and IF we 'settle" people will always say we are guilty and our image and that of our owner tarnished.

This is one we have to win, the only issue is the uncooperative part which I would imagine we could well be found guilty on, but the serious charges have to be ruled in our favor in my opinion.

 

[I'm Blue]

I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):

When I read a few pages back that the orange wankstain had ‘wiped the floor’ with you I was expecting to see something else other than what I’ve just watched.
Again you come across very well and very knowledgeable based on facts and your experiences within the financial sector.
Obviously the wankstain has his little digs but that’s nothing unusual when he thinks he’s the smartest man in the room, only to be proved wrong time and time again.