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.
