PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

My son, himself a journalist, messaged the BBC yesterday about the headline 'What is the latest on the club's 115 breaches?'. My son made it clear that the headline implies that the club has been found guilty. The BBC changed the headline as a result - along with others he mentioned in a similar vein.
 
Chris in London said:
I have to say that in its updated form I’ve read a lot worse than the BBC article.

like many others, my conclusion is that it tries to give an impress of balance whilst actually being pretty one-sided. It refers for instance to City spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their innocence without saying that the PL are spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their guilt. It refers to possible consequences for City if they are found guilty without referring to the possible consequences for the PL if they are not. It implies that City is more at risk because they don’t have the CAS safety net without observing that the Panel is likely to be significantly more robust than UEFA in the first place.

My overall impression is that someone at the BBC wanted to put something out showing that they weren’t scared by any cease and desist letter (or to dispel the rumours that they’d had one).

There’s nothing factually wrong in the article, they just cherry picked the bits they wanted to include and the bits they didn’t.

Typical piece of modern BBC click bait in other words. Not well written, biased, lacking in journalistic integrity.

nothing to see here, frankly. Nothing we haven’t seen many times before anyway.
Click to expand...
If you fail to report the relevant facts the article becomes impartial which is not what the BBC should be doing. They have a duty to provide reporting balance.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
The BBC article also changed another paragraph as shown below.

Yesterday it said when WILL Man City be punished and it did not include the explanation that they will only be punished if found guilty.

Disgraceful that BBC QC is so piss poor.

Changed paragraph from BBC:-

When could Man City be punished?

The honest answer is no-one knows and of course they will only be punished if they’re found guilty.
Click to expand...

IMO the original wording in the article was clearly deliberate, no jounalist at the esteemed BBC can be that stupid.

The club should ask for an explanation and public apology from the BBC and until that happens Roan and Stone should be banned from the Etihad.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
The BBC article also changed another paragraph as shown below.

Yesterday it said when WILL Man City be punished and it did not include the explanation that they will only be punished if found guilty.

Disgraceful that BBC QC is so piss poor.

Changed paragraph from BBC:-

When could Man City be punished?

The honest answer is no-one knows and of course they will only be punished if they’re found guilty.
Click to expand...
We're being tried by a kangaroo court being chaired by a member of the main complaining club, Arsenal. Colossal mistake. The Prem is just a commercial business owned by the clubs - it masquerades as a proper judicial authority - it's nothing of the sort. We'll eventually put the Prem on the stand in a proper court of law.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
IMO the original wording in the article was clearly deliberate, no jounalist at the esteemed BBC can be that stupid.

The club should ask for an explanation and public apology from the BBC and until that happens Roan and Stone should be banned from the Etihad.
Click to expand...
No doubt it was deliberate , any subsequent change to the wording now makes little difference , we are guilty in the minds of the general public .
 
Chris in London said:
I have to say that in its updated form I’ve read a lot worse than the BBC article.

like many others, my conclusion is that it tries to give an impress of balance whilst actually being pretty one-sided. It refers for instance to City spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their innocence without saying that the PL are spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their guilt. It refers to possible consequences for City if they are found guilty without referring to the possible consequences for the PL if they are not. It implies that City is more at risk because they don’t have the CAS safety net without observing that the Panel is likely to be significantly more robust than UEFA in the first place.

My overall impression is that someone at the BBC wanted to put something out showing that they weren’t scared by any cease and desist letter (or to dispel the rumours that they’d had one).

There’s nothing factually wrong in the article, they just cherry picked the bits they wanted to include and the bits they didn’t.

Typical piece of modern BBC click bait in other words. Not well written, biased, lacking in journalistic integrity.

nothing to see here, frankly. Nothing we haven’t seen many times before anyway.
Click to expand...
What happended to a public funded broadcaster being impartial. Also just because its happened before didn't mean its correct.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
From the CAS award:
View attachment 117996
Click to expand...

City need to be doing proper investigations into why it was our club that this hacker chose. No way it was just a random decision, he'll have been put up to it. Someone needs to check his bank accounts.

Tbh, this could all be stuff that City have done, who knows.
 
Last edited:
mattcity5 said:
City need to be doing proper investigations into why it was our club that this hacker chose. No way it was just a random decision, he'll have been put up to it. Someone needs to check his bank accounts.

Tbh, this could all be stuff that City have done, who knows.
Click to expand...
Pinto hacked lots of clubs and businesses and leaked plenty of juicy stuff about other parties.
 
mattcity5 said:
City need to be doing proper investigations into why it was our club that this hacker chose. No way it was just a random decision, he'll have been put up to it. Someone needs to check his bank accounts.

Tbh, this could all be stuff that City have done, who knows.Do you seriously think that Billionair
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe billionaire businessmen members of royalty and leaders of countries don’t do due diligence on stuff like this
 
The BBC have made some amendments to the rogue article from yesterday, but they have still omitted key facts about the history of the case. Because they are expected to be balanced in their reporting, I have challenged them again today. I don't normally make complaints, but when a public broadcaster shows bias against the club I have supported since 1978 I decided to take action. We havent got many friends in the media so we need to take a stand where we can. Here's the gist of my note to the BBC.


I notice that this report has been amended in parts (which is helpful), but still omits key facts and observations about the case between the Premier League and Man City.

Why is the Man City case taking so long? It is not explicit enough in the section that the PL took 4 years to investigate Man City from 2019 to 2023. It is lazy journalism to say that Man City dragged their feet. You should also be asking why the PL took so long rather than simply blaming Man City. Equally, there should be some mention that Man City have a right to defend themselves and perhaps the information the PL were asking for they had no right to ask for. So, we can only speculate as to why the case has taken so long instead of blaming Man City.

There should be a section of the report that asks the question - What happens if Man City are cleared of the charges? What does this mean for the PL's credibility?

What do the 115 charges mean? This section mentions the fact that Omar Berada is going to work at Man United - why not ask the question as to why Man United would hire someone that is so closely associated with Man City's commercial deals during the period in question relating to the 115 alleged breaches?

When could Man City be punished? This section seems to have been amended from what was reported yesterday - The section refers to the CAS decision, but needs to be clear about the outcome. Man City were not found guilty of financial wrong doing (there was no evidence and this is stated in the CAS report 11 times) and were also found not guilty of disguised equity funding. Also, the fine Man City received was for non-cooperation and CAS reduced this from the original fine set by UEFA. We can only speculate as to why Man City did not co-operate with UEFA, but during UEFAs investigation there were leaks of information provided by Man City to the press (e.g. New York Times).

Man City Charges Timeline - why does this not include the fact that the PL opened their investigation in 2019?
 
Chris in London said:
I have to say that in its updated form I’ve read a lot worse than the BBC article.

like many others, my conclusion is that it tries to give an impress of balance whilst actually being pretty one-sided. It refers for instance to City spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their innocence without saying that the PL are spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their guilt. It refers to possible consequences for City if they are found guilty without referring to the possible consequences for the PL if they are not. It implies that City is more at risk because they don’t have the CAS safety net without observing that the Panel is likely to be significantly more robust than UEFA in the first place.

My overall impression is that someone at the BBC wanted to put something out showing that they weren’t scared by any cease and desist letter (or to dispel the rumours that they’d had one).

There’s nothing factually wrong in the article, they just cherry picked the bits they wanted to include and the bits they didn’t.

Typical piece of modern BBC click bait in other words. Not well written, biased, lacking in journalistic integrity.

nothing to see here, frankly. Nothing we haven’t seen many times before anyway.
Click to expand...

I haven’t read much worse, genuinely.

The story should be fair, accurate and in good faith. You’re correct there may not be anything factually inaccurate but omitting key information certainly fails the good faith test.

However, the biggest problem is that the intention of this article is clearly to act as a definitive overview of the case for the reader. It’s not written as tabloid clickbait, it tries to hold itself to a much higher journalistic standard.

If that’s your intention then you have to accept an even higher level of responsibility to ensure it covers all bases accurately and in good faith. Otherwise the article fails in its most basic sense.

It’s a truly dreadful piece of journalism and the fact there’s no byline speaks volumes.
 
Last edited:
mattcity5 said:
City need to be doing proper investigations into why it was our club that this hacker chose. No way it was just a random decision, he'll have been put up to it. Someone needs to check his bank accounts.

Tbh, this could all be stuff that City have done, who knows.
Click to expand...
Pinto hacked every club, he had millions of emails, only half a dozen of any interest to City, of which 1 is suggestive, he was a blackmailer which is what he was arrested for, that is believed to be about Ronaldo, but it is highly unlikely to be the only one, Pinto did not release these pathetic emails for free, and you do not find a hacker blackmailer in the yellow pages.
 
BringBackSwales said:
Which ones specifically have been prosecuted by uefa and/or the premier league?
Click to expand...
The Dutch FA banned FC Twente from European competition based upon Pinto’s hacks.

UEFA investigated PSG based upon his leaks, albeit ultimately clearing them.

Tebas also threatened to sue FIFA based upon Pinto’s leaks of La Liga transfers and wages, blaming their systems for being hacked.

Apologies that this wasn’t as tinhatty as you hoped :/
 
salfordbluetrue said:
Pinto hacked every club, he had millions of emails, only half a dozen of any interest to City, of which 1 is suggestive, he was a blackmailer which is what he was arrested for, that is believed to be about Ronaldo, but it is highly unlikely to be the only one, Pinto did not release these pathetic emails for free, and you do not find a hacker blackmailer in the yellow pages.
Click to expand...
I am not sure he hackes every club , and it has always looked to me that City was his primary target
 
I'm sure that I read that BBC Online is a separate team headed by a rag. Responsible for aticles like yesterdays, and other top journalism like "What Sophie Ellis Bexter did on her holidays " and the like. I'm guessing that the editorial control over such articles was absent when this was first published, and only when the wave of complaints came in did someone bother to go back over it.

It also suggests to me that the rumoured letters from our learned friends to various media organisations are not real - if they were, there's no way this article would have even been contemplated let alone released as it was yesterday.
 
Bez said:
The BBC have made some amendments to the rogue article from yesterday, but they have still omitted key facts about the history of the case. Because they are expected to be balanced in their reporting, I have challenged them again today. I don't normally make complaints, but when a public broadcaster shows bias against the club I have supported since 1978 I decided to take action. We havent got many friends in the media so we need to take a stand where we can. Here's the gist of my note to the BBC.


I notice that this report has been amended in parts (which is helpful), but still omits key facts and observations about the case between the Premier League and Man City.

Why is the Man City case taking so long? It is not explicit enough in the section that the PL took 4 years to investigate Man City from 2019 to 2023. It is lazy journalism to say that Man City dragged their feet. You should also be asking why the PL took so long rather than simply blaming Man City. Equally, there should be some mention that Man City have a right to defend themselves and perhaps the information the PL were asking for they had no right to ask for. So, we can only speculate as to why the case has taken so long instead of blaming Man City.

There should be a section of the report that asks the question - What happens if Man City are cleared of the charges? What does this mean for the PL's credibility?

What do the 115 charges mean? This section mentions the fact that Omar Berada is going to work at Man United - why not ask the question as to why Man United would hire someone that is so closely associated with Man City's commercial deals during the period in question relating to the 115 alleged breaches?

When could Man City be punished? This section seems to have been amended from what was reported yesterday - The section refers to the CAS decision, but needs to be clear about the outcome. Man City were not found guilty of financial wrong doing (there was no evidence and this is stated in the CAS report 11 times) and were also found not guilty of disguised equity funding. Also, the fine Man City received was for non-cooperation and CAS reduced this from the original fine set by UEFA. We can only speculate as to why Man City did not co-operate with UEFA, but during UEFAs investigation there were leaks of information provided by Man City to the press (e.g. New York Times).

Man City Charges Timeline - why does this not include the fact that the PL opened their investigation in 2019?
Click to expand...
Great response.

Regarding City's 'non-co-operation' with UEFA it's my understanding that they did so on legal advice because of leaks of confidential details of the process from some person or persons within UEFA, most notably to The New York Times (Tariq Panja) and the Associated Press where Rob Harris was employed at the time.

Maybe somebody familiar with the precise details could confirm or deny this.
 
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