PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I see the BBC have updated yesterday's scandalously written article.

Now reads: Effectively the charges allege that Manchester City cheated.

I expect they'll still reply to my complaint and say they saw nothing wrong with it and the changes are coincidental.
trouble is the damage has ready been done. Who is going to scroll down to the bottom of the page to find it? And nobody who has already read it knows it’s been updated!!

However, Well done to those that challenged the corrupt BBC - eventually we shall prevail
 
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?
EXCELLENT. Well done for pursuing the matter. They can’t keep getting away with this corrupt & biased reporting.
 
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?
This latest biased report is just a carefully selected version of events that can only be an attempt to damage City. It mentions that it is based on the Der Spiegl coverage but goes much further than Der Spiegl and the stolen emails. BBC online published a large article in 2020 as a preview to the Rui Pinto trial which incorrectly claimed that the case was linked to interference by "Gulf Arab individuals" (totally false) and heavily linked the preview to City. BBC online then ignored the case and didn't report the evidence for 18 months. They eventually carried a brief report when Rui Pinto was subsequently jailed for extortion but the BBC ignored all the evidence during the trial.
The original report is still on the website archive compete with its false and racist claim that the data showed that: "Wealthy gulf arab individuals and organisation exerted strong influence over European Clubs." The case was nothing to do with so-called "Gulf Arab individuals" It was connected to Doyen Sports Agency (based in Kazakstan) and Portugese clubs. The BBC is still acting in bad faith.

 
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?
Well done for standing up, we need more to do so. do not get disheartened, this is just posturing, Masters repeated his quote about City to UEFA, City replied, essentially saying bring it on, a few of the media questioned whether The FA had a case, and low and behold, the media rallied and started talking punishment again which is what Masters wanted.
What the media should be asking is when is `soon` what is the date?, what is the week? what is the Month? what is the season? anything else is not soon. why is the FA so incompetent that it can not name a date, it is not prejudicing the hearing giving a date. The longer it goes on the less likely the FA have a case, and the damage costs to the FA goes up.
We have already won once, and on some charges 4 times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez
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.
He’s fighting the good fight, good on him.
 
The thing with yesterday's anti City found guilty from the bbc, is how the fuck it got past to go on line ?
Surely bbc lawyers would have told them not to publish the article as it was written.
I would like to think the bbc would investigate this and issue a warning or even a dismissal.

It truly is a scandalous piece.
 
The thing with yesterday's anti City found guilty from the bbc, is how the fuck it got past to go on line ?
Surely bbc lawyers would have told them not to publish the article as it was written.
I would like to think the bbc would investigate this and issue a warning or even a dismissal.

It truly is a scandalous piece.

Is there any reason ANY article should be up on the BBC without who it was written by listed at the top?

I can't think of a single genuine reason.
 
Pinto hacked lots of clubs and businesses and leaked plenty of juicy stuff about other parties.
8. Rui Pinto - Criminal Hacker or Hero Whistleblower?

Rui Pinto was identified as the source of Football Leaks by Portuguese magazine Sábado in September 2018. He was arrested in Budapest on 16 January 2019 at the request of the Portuguese authorities for suspicion of attempted qualified extortion, violation of secrecy and illegally accessing information. His lawyers argued that as a whistleblower he was entitled to protection under European law. However he was extradited to Portugal two months later and was charged with 147 crimes by the Public Ministry.

Portuguese prosecutors claim that Pinto attempted to extort Doyen Sports for one million euros using the identity of Artem Lobuzov, while Pinto's legal team stated that "the team set up by the Public Prosecution to investigate criminality in the football world seems to be more dedicated to pursuing those who denounce it than investigating those who practice the crimes". His case was taken up by French lawyer William Bourdon, who had previously defended Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

On 16 April 2019, Pinto was one of the winners of the European whistleblower award promoted by the European United Left (GUE / NGL), along with Julian Assange and Yasmine Motarjemi.

On 7 August 2020, Pinto was released from prison, pending his trial.

9. Rui Pinto’s Trial

Pinto was put on trial for computer hacking and extortion

The trial started in Lisbon on 4 September 2020, surrounded by strong security measures, never seen before in Portugal. In a short statement before the panel of judges, Pinto said he was a whistleblower who made public a lot of important information which would otherwise never be known, and that he never received money.

In several trial sessions, dubious and allegedly criminal acts perpetrated by those in charge of the investigation were identified, having led the panel of judges to make two reports aimed at investigating the conduct of inspectors of the Portuguese Judicial Police.

Since agreeing to cooperate with authorities in other cases, the 33-year-old Portuguese, who spent more than a year in pre-trial detention following his arrest in Hungary in January 2019, has been both defendant and protected witness.

“Rui Pinto has changed radically and is cooperating in an effective and relevant way,” allowing authorities access to a mass of encrypted data containing unpublished documents in his possession in Budapest, Portugal’s national director of the Judicial Police, Luis Neves, told the court in May 2021.

On that occasion, the head of the criminal police even criticized the “cynicism and hypocrisy” of the Portuguese judicial system.

Pinto is being tried for 89 hacking offences, which he allegedly committed against the investment fund Doyen Sports, Sporting Lisbon, the Portuguese Football Federation, a law firm, and magistrates of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic.

He is also on trial for attempted extortion.

The prosecution argues that Pinto tried to blackmail Doyen, which is based in Malta and controlled by a sibling of Kazakh-Turkish oligarchs, by demanding between 500,000 and one million euros to stop him publishing compromising documents on the Internet.

He then leaked documents in 2015. They were published in Germany’s Spiegel and other European outlets and sparked criminal investigations in countries including Britain and France.

“I was outraged by what I discovered and I decided to make it public,” Pinto said. “I never did anything for money,” he argued at the opening of the trial.

Pinto was also behind the “Luanda Leaks”, published in January 2020 accusing Angolan businesswoman Isabel dos Santos, daughter of former president Jose Eduardo dos Santos, of fraudulently accumulating a fortune estimated at almost 2 billion euros.

Placed in a witness protection program, Pinto allows himself to comment on current events on Twitter, especially on controversies involving soccer and money.

All of Rui Pinto’s hacking and extortion crimes are listed in Sam Knight’s expose “how Football Leaks is exposing corruption in European Soccer” in the New Yorker dated 27.5.19.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...aks-is-exposing-corruption-in-european-soccer

He has provided revelations about Sporting Lisbon and published various player contracts of Porto, Benfica, Olympique Marseille and FC Twente players.

The 88m of documents he has given to Der Spiegel is twice as large as the Panama Papers expose and 60 times bigger than Edward Snowden’s expose.

He provided correspondence regarding the Super League breakaway plans of Bayern, Barcelona, Juventus, Man United and AC Milan.

He provided revealing documents regarding Ronaldo’s rape accusations and the company Tollinn in the British Virgin Islands which Ronaldo uses to allegedly evade taxes and details of Gareth Bale’s contract where Real announced a fictitious lower fee in order to not offend Ronaldo who was bought for 94m euros.

He has provided confidential information on top players regarding their tax dealings alleging tax evasion, the deal between Porto and Real regarding the buying of Casemiro which included a 700,000 euro fee for the son of Porto’s president, Paul Pogba’s agent Minoia who got paid 49m euros for his role in his transfer and Argentine agents who used shell companies and straw men in their methods to evade taxes.

He was the main player in the extortion and blackmail of The Caledonian Bank and provided information regarding Doyen’s aggressive TPO deals and he also tried to extort Doyen.

PSG’s 1bn euros deal with the Qatar Tourism Authority - a later UEFA investigation showed the true market value of the deal to be as little as 15m euros.

How could the Premier League seriously trust this man - he is clearly a criminal.
 
I am not sure he hackes every club , and it has always looked to me that City was his primary target
We were definitely not the main target, a lot was happening at the time, Coka cola and mc donalds had approached Addidas to boycott the Russian world cup they refused, FIFA replied saying that the two foods were unhealthy making their sponsorship unlikely, they paid a fortune to WHO to make their food healthy, and a fortune to FIFA. Shortly after the Americans went after the golden boy of German football, Beckenbauer, no information was ever given but he retired from everything, Bayern are part of the G14, the leaks were released from a German source, even the person prosecuting City was employed by the main sponsors in Germany Volkswagen, Pinto was already in hiding, and as i said it takes a person blackmailed to know a blackmailer.
Not saying any of the above is definite, just another angle to look at something we will never have the answer to, but we were nothing but extras given out by a blackmailer to his victim.
 
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 :/
Cheers
 
The thing with yesterday's anti City found guilty from the bbc, is how the fuck it got past to go on line ?
Surely bbc lawyers would have told them not to publish the article as it was written.
I would like to think the bbc would investigate this and issue a warning or even a dismissal.

It truly is a scandalous piece.
When the BBC relocated to Manchester, they recruited a whole load of rags (Nick Coppack was one, I think) direct from the Swamp, to run BBC Sport’s Social Media. They’ve long since shown they don’t give a fuck about impartiality and have baited us relentlessly from the start.
All that bullshit about Cease and Desist notices (ie. there don’t appear to have actually been any) won’t have done anything to persuade them to wind their necks in either.
Writing them ‘Dear Mr Echo’ letters, as some Blues seem to have done, is a complete waste of time. Straight In the bin…….
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top