PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

GortonBlue62 said:
That wouldn't work on the radio, but if you could go back to 10:55, would you consider interrupting and dealing with SJ's points?

Or are you happy with how it went?
Click to expand...
Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?
 
supercity88 said:
He doesn't know what he's talking about and Stefan knows it's a waste of time even trying to argue with him. He suggests City are being obstructive, that there are examples of large scale fraud or conspiracies/scandals (Enron and the Post Office) and his obsession with our owners being dodgy means he concludes we must be guilty. I would have liked Stefan to ask him how many other scandals of such nature he can name...there's a reason these things stick in the mind, and that's because they don't happen very fucking often!

As Stefan says, if we were trying to get away with something it would be incredibly odd to have been willing to take it this far. There weren't inconsistencies at CAS, I don't believe Jordan has ever read that decision - not in any depth. He still thinks we were guilty but for loopholes and that the fine amounts to guilt in any case.
Click to expand...
Don't forget all of the charges at Cas were time-barred according to the simple one.
 
nu774ll said:
What I love most about the PL is they let Thaksin take over and nearly ruin the club and would have just left us to go bankrupt, but as soon as investment comes in and brings money into the team and league it’s cheating.

Should a shoddly run establishment
Click to expand...
He'd have never taken us bankrupt. He buried good fortune Crystals all around the pitch
 
slbsn said:
Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?
Click to expand...
He didn't like your reply so him and White just butted in and started speaking very loudly.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Your point regarding the trend for written documentation has been brought into many sectors of business.
I have been retired for some time now but recently the people who pay my pension including my state pension are requiring written evidence that I am effectively still alive.
They ask for various documents, my signature on various statements and all countersigned by a lawyer / solicitor.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is a normal way of working nowadays. It would seem a bit ridiculous to go to the effort (and it's no small effort) to put all this in place and provide approved information in a required format only for the someone or some organisation to insist that we should only rely on the "he said, she said" of a bunch of emails.

I recieve and respond to emails on a routine basis. The number of emails where the author misrepresents what's actually happening in a real process is surprisingly high. Mainly due the fact they haven't read the steps and instead have relied on a brew room explanation to help them understand how it works....I exaggerate of course, but I hope the jist is there :)
 
GortonBlue62 said:
I know you're not there to defend City. I know you're there to promote yourself. Absolutely no problem with that. In fact it makes your opinions even more valuable to people like me because it means your one of the few people worth listening to.

I'll stress, once again, my gratitude to people like you for sharing your expertise with us, but the fact remains the TS studio is not an environment you're able to thrive in. You are too measured, too polite, too slow to compete with those bastards.

Your strength is the written word and an environment where you have time to make your points to people who will give you a fair hearing.

My only concern is Manchester City, not your hurt feelings about being taken to the cleaners on national radio, yet again.

Fully braced for another thread ban for having the temerity to say anything negative about you, but I stand by the points I've made.
Click to expand...
What you want and what he allowed to say may well be very different, we are blessed with one voice on a media where we are hated, that makes a lot of money out of that hate, it is a voice that likely would have been very short lived if you/me would have had our input. :)
 
slbsn said:
Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?
Click to expand...
I can be a little aggressive in arguments but not to the point of stopping the other person getting their points across.

I'd love you to go on Simon Jordan's podcast. I've seen some clips and in that more relaxed environment he does let his guest speak at length.

Has it ever been suggested?
 
Alas, Stefan can only get a certain number of points across in a certain amount of time. An hour-long podcast is usually the best bet because thorough explanations can be provided to questions posed by a host willing to listen. The problem is essentially that Stefan plays chess whilst Jordan and White play draughts. Fundamentally, Talksport listeners have the attention span of a lobotomised goldfish so Stefan just has to do what he can in such a limited space.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
What you want and what he allowed to say may well be very different, we are blessed with one voice on a media where we are hated, that makes a lot of money out of that hate, it is a voice that likely would have been very short lived if you/me would have had our input. :)
Click to expand...
I know it's a long game and SB's evidence based sane approach will ultimately carry the day, we hope, but it makes my blood boil listening to those cunts on TS.
 
M18CTID said:
There was one e-mail that Der Spiegel pulled out of their arse a couple of weeks after the CAS verdict didn’t go their way. They claim it proved that Simon Pearce lied on oath but from memory it was just in a similar vein to the e-mails that City successfully defended against at CAS. As such, @petrusha - who is a lot more qualified than me at assessing these things - dismissed it at the time as more re-hashed bollocks. And looking at it logically, if it truly was a smoking gun then why the fuck didn’t UEFA open a new investigation off the back of it? If Jordan is pinning his hopes on that then he’s a desperate fucker IMO.
Click to expand...
If they, as you say pulled another email out of their arse, why didn't they submit this as evidence at CAS as you say. They are that desperate to see City as guilty they are grasping as many straws as they can.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Yes, I think that is what he is talking about.

Was discussed a while ago. Jordan is wrong that the evidence given by the witnesses at CAS was inconsistent. It was thoroughly consistent and convincing. Cogent is the word, I think.

As you say, he is referring to the Harris/Magic Twat theory that Pearce "unequivocally" denied at CAS that he had ever "arranged" any payments to be made to Etihad. But then some of the newly leaked emails after CAS, in 2022, seemed to show him "arranging" payments to and from Etihad. Their hope is that that is evidence of Pearce perjuring himself but, as always, it isn't that simple. Pearce is a smart guy. I doubt he will have any problem explaining why "arranging" payments to Etihad isn't the same as "arranging" payments to and from Etihad :)

Context is everything.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that later email from Pearce from the ADEC rather than from City or was I imagining that? So he might argue that his answers to CAS were regarding his role with City rather than with the Abu Dhabi government? Sheer know nowt speculation of course.
 
The consensus from both seemed to be to settle out of court
I feel the same but are we prepared to accept another pinch?
It would mean we can’t try to get damages out of the PL.
Personally, I would prefer us to go for the throat and dug up the dirt from the red tops.
Let the press print who was truly behind this case.
 
M18CTID said:
There was one e-mail that Der Spiegel pulled out of their arse a couple of weeks after the CAS verdict didn’t go their way. They claim it proved that Simon Pearce lied on oath but from memory it was just in a similar vein to the e-mails that City successfully defended against at CAS. As such, @petrusha - who is a lot more qualified than me at assessing these things - dismissed it at the time as more re-hashed bollocks. And looking at it logically, if it truly was a smoking gun then why the fuck didn’t UEFA open a new investigation off the back of it? If Jordan is pinning his hopes on that then he’s a desperate fucker IMO.
Click to expand...

We all know what the witnesses (all of them, not just Simon Pearce) said at CAS.

What we don't know is what the witnesses have said since.

But what's important to understand is that the club does. These cases are not ambushes, and they are not intended or permitted to be ambushes. If there is evidence showing that Simon Pearce or anyone else was lying at CAS, or might have been lying, by this stage of the proceedings that will not be a surprise to anyone. It will have been part of the PL's case for months if not years.

In other words, CIty will have known what the PL rely on - whether or not it is more emails from Der Spiegel = for months if not years. You go into this kind of hearing with your cards, in terms of the evidence you are relying on, already on the table lying face up. Of course, it may be something else entirely, for instance evidence that may have emerged during the disclosure process, or something else the PL have found (like a whistleblower). Either way, we can say for sure that the PL will have disclosed some time ago the evidence they intend to rely on to discredit MCFC's witnesses, and MCFC know exactly what it is that is being said against them and their witnesses.

So knowing the scale of the task they face, what can we read into the reported offer to settle for a small points deduction? IF - and it's a bit If - there really was an offer to settle for 6 points (or whatever it was) that makes me think three things.

First, IF the reality was that senior MCFC officials did lie at CAS, given that they have now seen the detail of the case against us I would be gobsmacked that the club did not take the deal. That is because the reported offer would have got the club off a particularly nasty hook at relatively modest cost, and would have been covered by a non-disclosure agreement so that the details did not enter the public domain. Such a settlement would plausibly allow the club to say 'we're not guilty but settling this for points we can win back through the season was the sensible thing to do rather than spend half the season with this hanging over us.'

Secondly, why would the PL make such an offer? Again, there are a number of reasons, but to make an offer to settle on the basis of such a lenient sanction (lenient in the context of the allegations) is a pretty clear pointer that someone somewhere along the line has spotted some pretty major weaknesses in the PL's own case. Don't get me wrong - cases with weaknesses can still succeed, and even strong cases can come apart in the courtroom - but experienced advocates can usually spot the winners from a fair distance out.

Likewise, even experienced advocates can get cold feet, but the reported offer struck me as being an attempt by the PL to get something over the line rather than face complete humiliation. I have told myself again and again to try to avoid looking at this through blue-tinted glasses, but each time I look at this I come back to a mental image of the CPS offering Fred and Rose West 6 months each for ABH.

Thirdly, disputes like this can only be resolved in two ways: one, you agree it with the other side, two, you let the panel make the decision. There are a number of reasons why we might not have accepted a settlement offer, the most probable - by far - is that the club thinks it will achieve a better outcome by going to trial. Which means that the club either thinks a non sporting sanction is likely even if City lose on the most serious charges - which I personally don't see happening in a month of Sundays - or they think the chances are that MCFC will be exonerated on everything that might lead to a sporting sanction.

Which is most of it bar the non-co-operation charge in my view.

I stress that the assumption that the PL made us an offer that, if the charges prove to be true, would be seen as ridiculously low is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the above. However if the account of that offer is in its essentials correct, to my mind that demonstrates a highly confident MCFC and a pretty desperate PL.

IF, I repeat, that offer was made.
 
Last edited:
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