PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...
Exactly chances of him choosing City out of the millions of companies in the world. And there is a club not too far away with a liking for hacking and owners with an unscrupulous reputation.
 
Cityfan1977 said:
I think City and there PR /media team made huge mistaka after CAS not to put a campaine out there explaining what went down at CAS huge mistaka they knew what would happened hence organise and clear .
Click to expand...

Easy to say with hindsight but the UEFA thing had pretty much gone away and I don't think the club expected the PL to go in as hard as they have. We're on record as saying we were surprised by it.
 
I think we all know whats coming regardless of whether were guilty or not. You only have to look at that terry flewers quote tweets on a post about settlement. Were going to be guilty regardless.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
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.
Click to expand...
With regards to the BBC, why don't we campaign for all blues (and families) to boycott any publication either online or otherwise just like the bin dippers with the Sun, that might focus their minds,
That's a lot of people !!
 
radcliffe1309 said:
With regards to the BBC, why don't we campaign for all blues (and families) to boycott any publication either online or otherwise just like the bin dippers with the Sun, that might focus their minds,
That's a lot of people !!
Click to expand...
they won’t be that worried. they’re probably more concerned about protecting the next paedophile or other sex offender on their payroll
 
mattcity5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Spot on. How can it slip through proof reader or an editor is beyond me .
 
radcliffe1309 said:
With regards to the BBC, why don't we campaign for all blues (and families) to boycott any publication either online or otherwise just like the bin dippers with the Sun, that might focus their minds,
That's a lot of people !!
Click to expand...
The BBC are losing customers in the millions, they see sucking up to SKY and utd as their only life line, no matter how much you boycott Sir Jimmy Saville`s buddies they will not care.
 
Had a response from the BBC. Acknowledging the language was misleading and one sided, plus usual corporate language...

BBC Complaints said:
Thanks for contacting us about an article on our BBC Sport website, now headlined ‘Manchester City 115 charges explained: What is latest on club's PSR case?’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o).

The initial version of this article featured some errors in language in some of the headings and subheadings, which could have given readers the impression that we were assuming guilt on the part of Manchester City, relating to alleged breaches of Premier League rules.

The article was written as an internet search ‘Question and Answer’, setting out to answer some of the most popular searches off the back of Everton and Nottingham Forest’s breaches of PSR rules. The headings in the article were made up of the most prevalent searches by fans, but we didn’t explain this context in the piece, which then could have given the impression we were assuming guilt. The article itself however, did repeatedly outline City’s defence and denial of all charges.

We have now corrected this language, and added some further context as to where the questions in the piece were taken from.

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward.
Click to expand...
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
‘Dear Echo’
Click to expand...
Very good!

FWIW, here's the reply I've just had from my Dear Echo letter...

Thanks for contacting us about an article on our BBC Sport website, now headlined ‘Manchester City 115 charges explained: What is latest on club's PSR case?’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o).

The initial version of this article featured some errors in language in some of the headings and subheadings, which could have given readers the impression that we were assuming guilt on the part of Manchester City, relating to alleged breaches of Premier League rules.

The article was written as an internet search ‘Question and Answer’, setting out to answer some of the most popular searches off the back of Everton and Nottingham Forest’s breaches of PSR rules. The headings in the article were made up of the most prevalent searches by fans, but we didn’t explain this context in the piece, which then could have given the impression we were assuming guilt. The article itself however, did repeatedly outline City’s defence and denial of all charges.

We have now corrected this language, and added some further context as to where the questions in the piece were taken from.

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward.

This is our response at Stage 1a of the BBC’s complaints process. If you’re dissatisfied with this reply, a follow-up complaint may be considered at Stage 1b. You must submit a follow-up within 20 working days through the BBC Complaints webform. If you do decide to contact us again, please include your case number, and explain why you feel your complaint has not been addressed. We will then review your complaint.

Thanks again and wishing you all the best,

BBC Complaints Team
Click to expand...
 
Reply received about that BBC "article". I'll post in the media thread as well.

Thanks for contacting us about an article on our BBC Sport website, now headlined ‘Manchester City 115 charges explained: What is latest on club's PSR case?’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o).

The initial version of this article featured some errors in language in some of the headings and subheadings, which could have given readers the impression that we were assuming guilt on the part of Manchester City, relating to alleged breaches of Premier League rules.

The article was written as an internet search ‘Question and Answer’, setting out to answer some of the most popular searches off the back of Everton and Nottingham Forest’s breaches of PSR rules. The headings in the article were made up of the most prevalent searches by fans, but we didn’t explain this context in the piece, which then could have given the impression we were assuming guilt. The article itself however, did repeatedly outline City’s defence and denial of all charges.

We have now corrected this language, and added some further context as to where the questions in the piece were taken from.

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward.

This is our response at Stage 1a of the BBC’s complaints process. If you’re dissatisfied with this reply, a follow-up complaint may be considered at Stage 1b. You must submit a follow-up within 20 working days through the BBC Complaints webform. If you do decide to contact us again, please include your case number, and explain why you feel your complaint has not been addressed. We will then review your complaint.

Thanks again and wishing you all the best,

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
 
bluetonium said:
Had a response from the BBC. Acknowledging the language was misleading and one sided, plus usual corporate language...
Click to expand...
Had exactly the same it’s unusual to get a response so quickly and in such detail so they have taken it seriously for a change I will now look the edited article and see if it is satisfactory
 
Bluemoon230989 said:
Reply received about that BBC "article". I'll post in the media thread as well.

Thanks for contacting us about an article on our BBC Sport website, now headlined ‘Manchester City 115 charges explained: What is latest on club's PSR case?’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o).

The initial version of this article featured some errors in language in some of the headings and subheadings, which could have given readers the impression that we were assuming guilt on the part of Manchester City, relating to alleged breaches of Premier League rules.

The article was written as an internet search ‘Question and Answer’, setting out to answer some of the most popular searches off the back of Everton and Nottingham Forest’s breaches of PSR rules. The headings in the article were made up of the most prevalent searches by fans, but we didn’t explain this context in the piece, which then could have given the impression we were assuming guilt. The article itself however, did repeatedly outline City’s defence and denial of all charges.

We have now corrected this language, and added some further context as to where the questions in the piece were taken from.

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward.

This is our response at Stage 1a of the BBC’s complaints process. If you’re dissatisfied with this reply, a follow-up complaint may be considered at Stage 1b. You must submit a follow-up within 20 working days through the BBC Complaints webform. If you do decide to contact us again, please include your case number, and explain why you feel your complaint has not been addressed. We will then review your complaint.

Thanks again and wishing you all the best,

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
Click to expand...
‘Errors and mistakes’
Were they really?
I’d say they planned it perfectly.
Write a load of bollocks and then change it after everyone’s read it.
With all the talk recently of letters being sent out I’d assume they would be extra careful just now.
So I’m calling bullshit.
 
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