PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Gazza said:
It's because it's a dead football week, everyone out of Europe except Villa, but that'll come tomorrow - they gotta fill their columns somehow, negative City articles are the go to fillers.

What they don't realise is that they're doing Pep's team talk for him.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with an article now, following the Forest appeal. A lot of (uninformed) people are asking these sort of questions whenever an FFP decision is made. But the BBC's job is to inform its viewers/ listeners/ readers, and that article does a piss poor job.
 
I am a sad bastard, but I have also written to Tim Davie, Director General of the BBC.

Good afternoon, today I have lost faith in the BBCs impartiality. Interestingly, there is no person named with the article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o

This article was posted today and either needs editing properly for accuracy or deleting altogether.

First issue is this section...

What do the 115 Man City charges mean?​

Effectively that Manchester City cheated.


In UK law people and organisations are innocent until proven guilty. This section of the article is misleading and inaccurate.


The next concern is this section of the report

When will Man City be punished?​



Man City have not been found guilty so this heading is loaded and biased.

Equally, why isn't there a paragraph that asks the question - will Man City be found guilty or cleared of the charges?

The next issue relates to misinformation regarding the CAS tribunal where Man City were cleared of any financial wrong doing. Yes, some allegations under consideration were time barred, but the CAS tribunal said very clearly in their report that Man City were not guilty of disguised equity funding. Additionally, Man City were fined by the CAS tribunal for non-cooperation - this is a fact. They were not fined 'largely for non-compliance' with the rules and instead they were only fined for non co-operation.

The statements used in this report are loaded and present an inaccurate description of what happened. I wonder if the writer of the article has actually read the CAS report. In the CAS report it says 11 times that there was no evidence of wrong doing by Man City in regard to allegations of financial impropriety.

My next issue relates to the section headed - why is the case taking so long? There is no mention in this section that the Premier League opened the case in 2019, I think the day after UEFA opened the case against Man City. Why is it not asked in article why the Premier League took more or less 4 years to charge Man City?

In the timescale at the end of the report there is no mention as to when the Premier League started their investigation into Man City in 2019. Why is this not mentioned?

My next issue is why is there not a section later on called "Will Man City be cleared?" with some reference to the CAS tribunal finidings as a guide.

I could go into more detail, but I suspect you will not even see this email and pass it on to the complaint handling team.

I think the least that should be done now is for the article to be withdrawn for rigorous editing and fact checking or a new article is written following proper research having been done into the CAS findings.

The BBC have lowered their standards today with poor quality journalism and they have shown a lack of rigour and impartiality. This needs to be put right please. Thanks in advance.

Best Regards
 
Sid Snott said:
I've treated all this from day one just the same as transfer rumours over the years. Until you see the player in the Colin Bell stand with his number on his shirt and Bernard Halford with a pen and contract there's no story.
Click to expand...
Come on mate, you know as well as I do..


...when the cones come out, its a done deal.
 
jaiguruKun said:
Off the top of my head having only read it once it states:-

City dragged their feet and this is why it took four years for the PL to charge us

That we paid players more than what was in their contracts

That it is only a matter of time before we are punished

All with no evidence to support any of the above.
Click to expand...
No evidence published by BBC online to support any of these claims. Not even Der Spiegl made these claims. The Spiegl coverage was mostly speculation based on the emails. The BBC article has not taken account of the fact we were cleared of all the substantial allegations by three independent judges at CAS and their judgement made it clear there was no evidence to suggest a different decision would have been produced on the time-barred elements.The BBC emphasises the £10m fine for non-coperation but doesn't mention it was reduced by CAS from £30m because of our mitigation. The article is distorted, biased, unbalanced, and unfair.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Anyone else seen this? It's shocking journalism from the BBC (surprise, surprise) and there are material inaccuracies in it.

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City 115 charges hearing Q&A: What is latest on PSR & FFP case?

Manchester City's hearing into 115 Premier League charges should be heard this season - BBC Sport looks at the latest on the case.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
F**King hell. From the State broadcaster that is shocking and a new low. But, it doesn't surprise me

"Clear and organised."
 
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