Another investigation bites the dust!

[Centurions]

Hope it doesn't reduce the value of my furniture collection.

The prices always rocket after the death of the artist, you just wait and see now that it's common knowledge. That said I see the BBC aren't covering this.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Good,how many investigations to go?

I can't remember which is the highest number - governing body and RDAH&DS investigations into City or the total of Sergio's goals and appearances put together. I think the latter might just shade it!

 

[BlueAnorak]

The bias on the BBC website is incredible. To what other team would the BBC say:
"The governing body reserves the right to reopen the investigation if new information becomes available."
This is a standard paragraph in any FA investigation not-guilty press release, yet the BBC feel the need to put it in their article.

 

[Centurions]

The bias on the BBC website is incredible. To what other team would the BBC say:
"The governing body reserves the right to reopen the investigation if new information becomes available."
This is a standard paragraph in any FA investigation not-guilty press release, yet the BBC feel the need to put it in their article.

Sky have done the same (note the emphasis on 'No evidence' in their link for the article, it's their quote marks):-

'No evidence' over City-Sancho agent deal

While the case appears to be closed, the FA reserves the right to reopen the investigation should new information become available.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Sky have done the same (note the emphasis on 'No evidence' in their link for the article, it's their quote marks):-

'No evidence' over City-Sancho agent deal

While the case appears to be closed, the FA reserves the right to reopen the investigation should new information become available.

"No evidence" is good. It means there never was a case and is about as strong as it gets in clearing someone of an allegation.

The next question, if we had any serious journalists, is why the fuck there was an investigation in the first place if there was "no evidence".

Every single regulatory body has a targeting and triage section whose job is to decide whether there are grounds for conducting an investigation in the first place. Media speculation based on hacked emails is the lowest form of "intelligence" and should never be accepted as grounds to launch a potentially reputation-damaging enquiry.

Which brings me on to UEFA....

 

[MillionMilesAway]

"No evidence" is good. It means there never was a case and is about as strong as it gets in clearing someone of an allegation.

The next question, if we had any serious journalists, is why the fuck there was an investigation in the first place if there was "no evidence".

Every single regulatory body has a targeting and triage section whose job is to decide whether there are grounds for conducting an investigation in the first place. Media speculation based on hacked emails is the lowest form of "intelligence" and should never be accepted as grounds to launch a potentially reputation-damaging enquiry.

Which brings me on to UEFA....

If there was a possibility that a payment is against the rules, and particularly concerning agents and youth players, I think the FA should absolutely investigate it.

As far as I know, City have never denied that the payment was made; as far as I know, the hack had an email from a City lawyer that it might be dodgy, and that should be enough grounds for the FA to investigate.

 

[Newquayblue]

"No evidence" is good. It means there never was a case and is about as strong as it gets in clearing someone of an allegation.

The next question, if we had any serious journalists, is why the fuck there was an investigation in the first place if there was "no evidence".

Every single regulatory body has a targeting and triage section whose job is to decide whether there are grounds for conducting an investigation in the first place. Media speculation based on hacked emails is the lowest form of "intelligence" and should never be accepted as grounds to launch a potentially reputation-damaging enquiry.

Which brings me on to UEFA....

Why has it taken so long to conclude there’s no evidence?

 

[Newman Noggs]

If there was a possibility that a payment is against the rules, and particularly concerning agents and youth players, I think the FA should absolutely investigate it.

As far as I know, City have never denied that the payment was made; as far as I know, the hack had an email from a City lawyer that it might be dodgy, and that should be enough grounds for the FA to investigate.

Depends what the "possibility" amounts to. Allegations are very cheap, reputations are hard won. It behoves the regulatory body concerned to ensure that the intelligence is sufficiently robust to justify the expenditure of resource and the risk to reputation of the subject. I'd say the latter duty of care was paramount given the media hysteria surrounding our club at the time.

And, if you really must launch an investigation on flinsy, unreliable, non-existent evidence, make it a confidential one. Maintain a "neither confirm nor deny" line in the face of media enquiries. And if an enquiry is carried out, announce the findings at the end of the investigation. It's not difficult unless you are an organisation more given to macho posturing to maintain image and kowtow to media pressure than real regulation.

 

[Centurions]

"No evidence" is good. It means there never was a case and is about as strong as it gets in clearing someone of an allegation...

I read 'No evidence' as being in air quotes but perhaps it's just me.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Why has it taken so long to conclude there’s no evidence?

Because they've asked Merseyside Police to investigate?