PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Centurions said:
Probably his wife passing away, I think she battled a brain tumour (from memory) for a long period which must be horrendous for all to live through.
Click to expand...

Yes, I actually went online after I had differences with him to read an article about her illness and death. It was awful and he was left with two young daughters to care for too. I truly feel for anybody who went through or is going through that.

I could see how it would affect somebody psychologically, often with them being unaware just how much. I'm not sure what the correlation is with the City hatred and obsession though, because that is what it is. It has gone beyond normal investigative journalism.
 
paulchapo said:
Yes, I actually went online after I had differences with him to read an article about her illness and death. It was awful and he was left with two young daughters to care for too. I truly feel for anybody who went through or is going through that.

I could see how it would affect somebody psychologically, often with them being unaware just how much. I'm not sure what the correlation is with the City hatred and obsession though, because that is what it is. It has gone beyond normal investigative journalism.
Click to expand...

I guess as he works self employed he hasnt the network that a company would offer or support.

This isnt really an excuse for writing/telling untruths and slandering someone
 
Last edited:
I'm about halfway through this podcast.

Harris talks about potentially whistleblowers coming forward, when saying the PL must have something big up their sleeve if they brought the 115 charges, knowing how it went with CAS.

The other thing is about the Simon Pearce email, which wasn't revealed until after CAS.

What do we think of these two points?
 
Paladin said:
100%. Harris has very little remaining credibility. He's not worth engaging with, not worth suing either, imo.

I doubt he will have much of a future as a FFP expert. Everyone could see who the real expert was when they went head to head.

Well done, and thank you Stefan for another interesting presentation of reality.
Click to expand...
Agreed mate, he’s in a very dangerous and delicate place mentally, I suspect it’s a big reason why the club don’t engage with him, nobody wants to be the one that finally pushes him over the edge, nothing good will come out of challenging him in a legal sense.
 
I thought the podcast was fascinating for a number of reasons. Firstly you had Nick Harris spouting the current assumed narrative that pervades so much of the coverage and @projectriver politely and patiently responding with the facts in a very measured manner.

There is an enormous amount of misunderstanding and misinformation that have become the accepted version of events. The nomination of a second panel member (from CAS panel) by City which was accepted by UEFA is not untoward, unusual or proof of some surrender by UEFA but it is somehow presented as such.

The settlement in 2014 with UEFA is now presented as acknowledgment of guilt which wasn’t appealed rather than the “pinch” as Khaldoon referred to at the time. It would have been reached with no acknowledgment of guilt and seen by both sets of lawyers as the best resolution. UEFA would not have wanted a legal challenge and we would simply wanted an end to it in circumstances which we (wrongly) believed would be the end of it.

It is also clear than so many people (Harris included) haven’t read the CAS judgement or simply don’t understand it.

What @projectriver does, and does very well, is set out the position, as far anyone can know outside of City and the Premier League, and he hasn’t shied away from pointing out the seriousness of adverse findings for City.

Harris’s response since the podcast has been disappointing but illuminating. If he was interested in discussing and debating the matter he would not been engaging in as hominem attacks, innuendo or potentially libellous comments. It’s clearly far better for him to be raging against City then dealing with the facts of case again City, which rather undermines his bona fides.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
I'm about halfway through this podcast.

Harris talks about potentially whistleblowers coming forward, when saying the PL must have something big up their sleeve if they brought the 115 charges, knowing how it went with CAS.

The other thing is about the Simon Pearce email, which wasn't revealed until after CAS.

What do we think of these two points?
Click to expand...
If there was a whistle blower, we will have acted with the knowledge that they had one and plead guilty had they had any evidence. We haven’t done, which leads me to believe there isn’t one.

The email apparently was unearthed after CAS, but unless the PL can prove that our owner has directly paid Etihad’s sponsorship bill to us, then it proves nothing and Etihad don’t need to show their books to the committee. Again, if they had the evidence, we wouldn’t have plead not guilty. This again makes me believe that isn’t enough evidence to convict.

I could be wrong, but that’s my take.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not my job to tell anyone else what to do, but there is simply no point engaging with a **** like this in any way whatsoever. Absolutely none.

It’s like joining RAWK as a City fan and expecting any reasonable and rational level of debate on the subject of the 115 charges.
Click to expand...

Harris has employed the Joey Barton approach of trying to be as outrageous as possible while appealing to the lowest common denominator.

It’s the last bastion to remaining relevant.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
If there was a whistle blower, we will have acted with the knowledge that they had one and plead guilty had they had any evidence. We haven’t done, which leads me to believe there isn’t one.

The email apparently was unearthed after CAS, but unless the PL can prove that our owner has directly paid Etihad’s sponsorship bill to us, then it proves nothing and Etihad don’t need to show their books to the committee. Again, if they had the evidence, we wouldn’t have plead not guilty. This again makes me believe that isn’t enough evidence to convict.

I could be wrong, but that’s my take.
Click to expand...
Why do Etihad not have to show their books?
Would they not actually be freely available to get?
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.