SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
So I fear would most media these days.
They make a living by taking aspects of interviews or statements and misrepresenting context into invented prose they call news.
I think it's called clickbait or something similar
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
They make a living by taking aspects of interviews or statements and misrepresenting context into invented prose they call news.
I think it's called clickbait or something similar
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Was it Harris who fairly recently was begging for someone who either does or has previously worked for City to contact him with information? It really is sad how obviously his mental health is affected by ourselves. Even City themselves are apparently puzzled as to his about-turn in how he regards us since his wife's sad passing. He was welcomed at the club before hand.I saw this posted on rawk - they regard Harris to be some journalistic powerhouse - and, although I won't bother linking his tweet, he states before it:
"I've spoken to multiple MCFC / CFG employees & former employees since 2014 who are not comfortable with City's behaviour. I have zero need to protect this person's anonymity but will anyway. If you want to ID yourself and try to justify this, then please do. You know who you are."
If I have Stefan's Twitter correct - this must have been referencing him because Slbsn then responds:
"Sad move to attempt to bully or seek to embarrass me by tweeting my pure speculation at what a given Der Speigel email may mean when we were very periodically on DM years ago.I hope you have better sources/whistleblowers than me as I was never an employee, have no access to any confidential information at all and last worked for the club as a financial (not legal) adviser (not an employee as you claim) in 2007. Everything I say is opinion, analysis or speculation from the outside. So whatever you think you get by making this attack I think you will be sadly disappointed. I certainly have no need to justify anything. You are the one that claims to have the inside sources. You’ve just blown your own credibility if you consider me a source."
Last edited:
Asa's left peg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 3,480
- Location
- Sandbach via Rusholme
- Team supported
- Some team in the CFG
I love that Stefan is trying to stem the tide of shit using his professional knowledge and an array of facts that is readily available, and credit for putting himself at risk for this, but the old adage of lying down with dogs and getting fleas, comes to mind. A bit like Sam Lee and the Whatsapp group.
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
Just a line for Stefan. I thought it was like a cat toying with a mouse. I particularly enjoyed your silence whilst Harris spouted his nonsense. I must admit to voicing my disgruntlement when he mentioned we had "Accepted" our breach of FFP in 2014 when I knew this to be untrue. I should, of course, like you did, adhere to Napoleon's epithet that "one should never interrupt one's enemy whilst he is making a mistake". Like you though, one can draw his attention to it once its been made.
He of course made several errors in both his assumptions and cited facts for which you rightly corrected him. The selection of CAS judges, difference between a fine and a penalty, the normalcy of agreements in litigation, the fact City would not accept they breached FFP in 2014 (Subsequently highlighted by your tweet of the actual statement of fact), the size of the penalty. These are all his constant twitter talking points lapped up by the red twitterati. It must be quite disheartening for him to be constantly proved wrong.
He seems obsessed with values of sponsorship contracts for which nobody appears to have hard facts for the values of, let alone the details of those sponsorships. The facts being that no authority has ever indicated that City's sponsorships amounts are in question for either value or their veracity. I suspect he makes an assumption that alleged breaches of FFP in relation to "fraudulent accounts" incorporate this but that a huge leap of faith without any evidence.
So following his hour long chastisement and thorough debunking of most if not all of his "arguments" he retreats to his "safe zone" on twitter and starts hurling baseless insults and quoting nonsense as "evidence", only to be thoroughly undressed in public again. Its easy to see who the victor was when your foe resorts to posting crying emojis like a child with the IQ of a cabbage. It reminded me of the meme regarding one should never play chess with pigeons as all they do after being well beaten is shit and strut all over the board and pretend like they won anyway.
I'm going to have a long look at the post CAS emails from DS regarding SImon Cookes statement and their alleged inconsistency with his CAS testimony. I'm not sure how damning they really are. I cannot remember specifically if that testimony was quoted verbatim or referred to in general in the Case judgement and what, if anything one can take from it. I might come back to you on that.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable podcast - thanks for posting.
He of course made several errors in both his assumptions and cited facts for which you rightly corrected him. The selection of CAS judges, difference between a fine and a penalty, the normalcy of agreements in litigation, the fact City would not accept they breached FFP in 2014 (Subsequently highlighted by your tweet of the actual statement of fact), the size of the penalty. These are all his constant twitter talking points lapped up by the red twitterati. It must be quite disheartening for him to be constantly proved wrong.
He seems obsessed with values of sponsorship contracts for which nobody appears to have hard facts for the values of, let alone the details of those sponsorships. The facts being that no authority has ever indicated that City's sponsorships amounts are in question for either value or their veracity. I suspect he makes an assumption that alleged breaches of FFP in relation to "fraudulent accounts" incorporate this but that a huge leap of faith without any evidence.
So following his hour long chastisement and thorough debunking of most if not all of his "arguments" he retreats to his "safe zone" on twitter and starts hurling baseless insults and quoting nonsense as "evidence", only to be thoroughly undressed in public again. Its easy to see who the victor was when your foe resorts to posting crying emojis like a child with the IQ of a cabbage. It reminded me of the meme regarding one should never play chess with pigeons as all they do after being well beaten is shit and strut all over the board and pretend like they won anyway.
I'm going to have a long look at the post CAS emails from DS regarding SImon Cookes statement and their alleged inconsistency with his CAS testimony. I'm not sure how damning they really are. I cannot remember specifically if that testimony was quoted verbatim or referred to in general in the Case judgement and what, if anything one can take from it. I might come back to you on that.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable podcast - thanks for posting.
projectriver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,259
He's woke up windmilling this morning.
*Any grounds for defamation in this ?*
Lie 3 is clearly libellous I'd say. It is an outright lie and carries an inference seeking to damage my reputation. I don't think it is even debatable.
Bluechipblue
Well-Known Member
& yet unemployed. He’s created a whole persona as a Football Financial Investigative journalist, the best team in the world are facing 115 charges & he still is unable to get a job.
What a pathetic ****…..
Football Financial Investigative journalist?
More like 'Inch High Private Eye'.
OrigamiNinja
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 9,199
Please sue him. Pretty please.Lie 3 is clearly libellous I'd say. It is an outright lie and carries an inference seeking to damage my reputation. I don't think it is even debatable.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Yes, posted before things developed but my point remains albeit in a slightly modified way!Not sure if they were posted when you looked, but you need to read the replies to the tweet ..... a very underhand and snidey move by Mr Harris, which appears to have backfired on him
It’s astonishing to read Harris’s Twitter output (via Stefan’s replies as Harris has blocked me) after having listened to the podcast. Stefan’s measured legal objectivity demolished Harris’s attempts at sensationalism but, fair dos, Harris was polite enough during the podcast.
However Harris’s wilful refusal to understand the concept of a litigation settlement and his subsequent pathetic attempts to belittle Stefan on Twitter and his frankly childish and embarrassing use of emojis totally undermines his credibility.
Whether or not City have breached the rules, Harris’s opinions on the subject are utterly worthless.
What a strange person he must be.
However Harris’s wilful refusal to understand the concept of a litigation settlement and his subsequent pathetic attempts to belittle Stefan on Twitter and his frankly childish and embarrassing use of emojis totally undermines his credibility.
Whether or not City have breached the rules, Harris’s opinions on the subject are utterly worthless.
What a strange person he must be.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Take him to the cleaners, call the idiot out.Lie 3 is clearly libellous I'd say. It is an outright lie and carries an inference seeking to damage my reputation. I don't think it is even debatable.
It's about time someone stopped this prick in his tracks as he is toxic with his views on city.
Do it mate.