PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[blue for life]

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.

Yes I noted the nation state shit but Jordan was babbling and interrupting that much it was probably difficult to cut in like that idiot does!

 

[Rammy Blue]

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.

What makes me laugh is Jordan’s attempts to say we have all this money to throw at our legal representation, as if we shouldn’t be allowed. Why the fuck not? That’s our prerogative to use the best available counsel. Fuck them all.

 

[Tarzan41]

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):

Not sure anyone could have an issue with any of this. Totally non controversial

 

[Blue Maverick]

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.

Doesn’t matter if we are found innocent now the damage has been done, a bit like the uefa one back in 2014. If we do a deal it must be on our terms with the Premier League issuing a statement saying basically they couldn’t prove shit but rather than waste time and money we have come to an agreement the PL are wankers and City are the best team in the land and all the world :)

 

[Rammy Blue]

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.

Then they wouldn’t have Stefan back on, it’s better we have someone trying to articulate and cut through some of the bollocks than have nothing at all.

I don’t listen to talkshite anyway, so it doesn’t cross my radar, but I do follow this thread so will take an interest every now and then.

 

[theres only one carlito]

No issue at all with @projectriver going on talksport. Always speaks well.
Here it is for anyone who's interested

talkSPORT Web Player - Listen Live | talkSPORT

Tune in for Live Sports Commentaries, Exclusive Breaking News, Opinion and More. Take a look through our schedule or listen back to anything you missed.

talksport.com

Jordan dealing in conspiracy theory excuses and playing to the masses. Stefan dealing with the facts of the arbitration process.

 

[Gazza]

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.

Jordan was probably miffed because he'd received a C & D letter and was trying to be bullish to make it look like he didn't care.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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):

Thought you handled Jordan reasonbly well, despite him continually interrupting you and also quoting back to you the seriousness of the charges City face, something you actually pointed out to him on your last appearance, seemed like he had obviously forgotten that.

Pretty obvious he has an agenda against City as despite him saying he didn't at the start , he was clearly sarcastic at the end with regards to City won't want a settlement as they have always stated their innocence.

Every interview he does, with you, he keeps harping on about City's war chest as though we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves ? But states he has no agenda.

 

[supercity88]

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 don't think our owners give a shit about people thinking we are guilty, if we've officially been cleared. Again, we're not Prince Andrew in this, it doesn't really matter what people think. If we're cleared officially then the sponsors and investment continues to roll in. We wouldn't settle without a statement confirming our innocence, probably something confirming we've "settled" on the non-cooperation charge but the PL found no evidence against the other charges. A technical matter. Move on.

However, the talk of settling this case has just come up on TS as a potential resolution. There's no evidence behind that as far as I'm aware.

Jordan (****) does have a point in that if we have irrefutable evidence, why would we settle? But if it speeds things up and lets us crack on with business we might, but we'd have some pretty strong terms. Probably something like, don't bring charges against us ever again!

 

[carlosthejackal]

I think Jordan had the upper hand in that debate today sadly. Whether what he was saying was right or wrong, he shouted out enough for the haters to have more ammo to throw at us.

Anyway, the main summary of today is that the cease and resist letters story seems to have been fake news

I think Stefan has said from the start that he has no inside knowledge of any letters being sent .

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

That well known, highly successful, live broadcaster with his own TV show on ITV?

No. The other one….

 

[Rochdale Blue]

I can guarantee the comments on the YouTube will be that I was biased for City so Gorton's attacks are his prerogative. A bit weird. But his prerogative.

I just wish White would tell Jordan's smirking face to button it when he constantly tries to talk over you. Keep up the good work, everyone except one person appreciates what you are doing.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Am I the least popular poster on this forum today :-)

I think you were a bit harsh on Stefan. I think he did ok. The argument about legal fees is a sideshow and I don't think Jordan made any other significant points today. In fact Jordan's position on City has notably softened in recent months and I think some of that is down to Stefan and his more measured approach.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

This is why you are wrong.

1. The majority of the discussion related to Jordan's view that City have more resources to throw at its legal team than the PL. That is a longhand way of saying City will win because they have the better lawyers.

2. That discussion is in itself a very long way from previous discussions, to the effect that City are/must be guilty. It is, in effect, Jordan setting himself up for the later argument that City only won because they had the best lawyers. Not even that City had a case to answer, nothing about what was said at CAS, nothing. That is definitely much more than a step in the right direction.

Do you see what I mean? The discussion has stopped being 'why City are guilty', it has started being 'why City are going to win.'

That's a huge PR win in itself.

3. There is always going to be an element, I'd imagine a pretty large element, of football's fan base that will regard us as being guilty whatever the outcome. Look at what happened at CAS, and how a resounding victory got twisted into 'they only won because the charges were all time-barred.' If you are expecting this section of the footballing world to adopt a fair and reasonable view of City and this case, you are waiting for hell to freeze over.

4. Jordan did make one excellent point, which is that City's case is not just about accounting breaches in a single year, it is about widescale allegations of fraud of the most serious nature, being aimed against some players with very very high reputations. Of course they are not going to skimp on legal fees when it comes to defending themselves. If nothing else, think of the cost to the club if they were relegated even to the Championship and neither had PL TV rights nor (down the line) Champions league income to rely on. The potential financial consequence could quite easily run into hundreds of millions of pounds. In what world are they going to NOT going to take on board the highest quality representation?

5. The reason I make this point is that during the discussion on TS, two issues got conflated: (a) whether it was 'fair' that City are able to throw more money at lawyers than the PL - as to which see 4 above - and (b) whether the outcome, assuming it goes City's way, reflects that and nothing more. These are two separate points which need to be seen separately. As to the first, as I've said, the whole club's reputation is on the line. Anyone bringing such serious charges against City should really have considered what response the club was likely to adopt if they did. It can't be said it was in any way unforeseeable that we would send in the heavyweights. As to the second, that's just uneducated rubbish. If the case is strong enough, the best most expensive team will not get you out of trouble, nor can the best most expensive team win a case that is doomed to fail. You spend what City have spent to ensure that there are no stones unturned, so ensure that you are able to consider all the possible arguments, and conduct proper reviews of all the evidence, which in a case like this will be mountainous. What City's team will have done is explain the very serious legal hurdles the PL need to overcome, and assess the evidence on which the PL intend to rely with a view to advising what the likely outcome is. If the PL have not done the same, more fool them for taking on a task without a proper appreciation of what is really involved.

If the PL have brought a knife to a gunfight, that's on them.

 

[ComfySeats]

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):

It feels like every time this conversation happens on radio or tv it needs to be prefixed with

1. You can't compare a team claiming innocence (city) and a team who have accepted guilt (everton), Just because the guilty team aren't happy with the outcome of their own points deduction.

2. You can't be upset that a club who believe they are innocent are using all resources (lawyers) at their disposal to prove their innocence.

With regards to the section on talksh!te today, it played out exactly as you would expect because these interviewers like most in society today are not listening they are just waiting (and sometimes not waiting) for their turn to speak. a phrase comes to mind "what have you achieved by besting a fool".

 

[I'm Blue]

I just wish White would tell Jordan's smirking face to button it when he constantly tries to talk over you. Keep up the good work, everyone except one person appreciates what you are doing.

Haha as if.
Jim has his head well and truly up the orange wankstains ring piece.
He sits there giggling like a little schoolgirl.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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

It depends on the settlement. If the PL withdrew all their allegations as part of a settlement and we chose not to rub their noses in it that might be a good result. We may have irrefutable proof but it could take years going through legal battles just to make our point and whatever the result we will never win over our enemies.

 

[Sky Blue]

Simon Jordan is a clueless **** was written all over Stefan's face in that discussion.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter; thanks to our experts on here, Stefan included, I'm reasonably confident we will prevail and the PL will not be able to make the case against us.

In the court of public opinion it does matter.

Which court of public opinion is that?
I rather suspect that the ownership look at bit wider than ‘what do Dippers, Rags and Arses think’, when worrying about city, and the rest of the world just don’t seem to be at all preoccupied with 115…
For example, the 25 most watched teams in the USA, taking account of streaming, PPV etc, for 2023.

1. Club América
2- Manchester City
3- Chivas
4- Tigres
5- Liverpool
6- Arsenal
7 - Real Madrid
8 - Chelsea
9 - Newcastle United
10 - Cruz Azul
11 - Pumas
12 - Monterrey
13 - Tottenham Hotspur
14 - Manchester United
15 - León
16 - Everton
17 - Atlas
18 - West Ham
19 - Nottingham Forest
20 - Aston Villa
21 - Pachuca
22 - Atlético de San Luis
23 - Toluca
24 - Bournemouth
25 - Barcelona

 

[Rammy Blue]

This is why you are wrong.

1. The majority of the discussion related to Jordan's view that City have more resources to throw at its legal team than the PL. That is a longhand way of saying City will win because they have the better lawyers.

2. That discussion is in itself a very long way from previous discussions, to the effect that City are/must be guilty. It is, in effect, Jordan setting himself up for the later argument that City only won because they had the best lawyers. Not even that City had a case to answer, nothing about what was said at CAS, nothing. That is definitely much more than a step in the right direction.

Do you see what I mean? The discussion has stopped being 'why City are guilty', it has started being 'why City are going to win.'

That's a huge PR win in itself.

3. There is always going to be an element, I'd imagine a pretty large element, of football's fan base that will regard us as being guilty whatever the outcome. Look at what happened at CAS, and how a resounding victory got twisted into 'they only won because the charges were all time-barred.' If you are expecting this section of the footballing world to adopt a fair and reasonable view of City and this case, you are waiting for hell to freeze over.

4. Jordan did make one excellent point, which is that City's case is not just about accounting breaches in a single year, it is about widescale allegations of fraud of the most serious nature, being aimed against some players with very very high reputations. Of course they are not going to skimp on legal fees when it comes to defending themselves. If nothing else, think of the cost to the club if they were relegated even to the Championship and neither had PL TV rights nor (down the line) Champions league income to rely on. The potential financial consequence could quite easily run into hundreds of millions of pounds. In what world are they going to NOT going to take on board the highest quality representation?

5. The reason I make this point is that during the discussion on TS, two issues got conflated: (a) whether it was 'fair' that City are able to throw more money at lawyers than the PL - as to which see 4 above - and (b) whether the outcome, assuming it goes City's way, reflects that and nothing more. These are two separate points which need to be seen separately. As to the first, as I've said, the whole club's reputation is on the line. Anyone bringing such serious charges against City should really have considered what response the club was likely to adopt if they did. It can't be said it was in any way unforeseeable that we would send in the heavyweights. As to the second, that's just uneducated rubbish. If the case is strong enough, the best most expensive team will not get you out of trouble, nor can the best most expensive team win a case that is doomed to fail. You spend what City have spent to ensure that there are no stones unturned, so ensure that you are able to consider all the possible arguments, and conduct proper reviews of all the evidence, which in a case like this will be mountainous. What City's team will have done is explain the very serious legal hurdles the PL need to overcome, and assess the evidence on which the PL intend to rely with a view to advising what the likely outcome is. If the PL have not done the same, more fool them for taking on a task without a proper appreciation of what is really involved.

If the PL have brought a knife to a gunfight, that's on them.

Very well written, and sums the situation up perfectly.