PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

projectriver said:
He can't really believe I am a whistleblower? I have no information at all and never even acted for them after July? 2007. I've never been an employee. It would be deranged to consider me even a source.

As for your main point, I completely agree and should have said that especially as it has been the key point all along!
Click to expand...

I don't think he's referring to you as a whistleblower, he's been throwing that around for a few years now.

A cyinic would say it lends credibility to his accusations without him ever having to produce evidence of the person existing.
 
projectriver said:
He can't really believe I am a whistleblower? I have no information at all and never even acted for them after July? 2007. I've never been an employee. It would be deranged to consider me even a source.

As for your main point, I completely agree and should have said that especially as it has been the key point all along!
Click to expand...

It's interesting that he specifically, and one assumes quite deliberately, uses the word 'whistleblower.' When we think of whistleblowers, usually it is in the context of serious corruption or other major wrongdoing that some public-spirited person somewhere thinks should be made public. Just to take one instance, ITN have done some good work recently on a toxic sexist culture that exists within numerous fire services. The people who have put their heads (anonymously or otherwise) above the parapet in that respect might be regarded as genuine whistleblowers. Sometimes these people are the victims of that culture, other times they are first hand witnesses to it.

It is the fact that they have first hand evidence which they choose to put into the public domain for the public good that is however perhaps the crucial characteristic of the whistleblower.

You only need to look at the dates to realise what a stretch it is - well beyond breaking point - to describe you in those terms. Your involvement with City was as an advisor in the pre-Shinawatra era. Even assuming an advisor rather than an actual employee could be a whistleblower, the PL allegations concern matters that occurred years after any events of which it could be said you have first hand knowledge.

So why would Nick Harris choose the word 'whistleblower'? In my view it can only be to imbue his content with an air of authority and authenticity that is simply not there. He knows you are not a whistleblower in any conventional sense but chooses describe you as such nonetheless.

It is, in other words, dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
The "whistleblower" appears to be a reference to Stefan himself. Interestingly, in his tweets Harris both refers to 'multiple sources' at City and refers to his 'whistleblower' in the singular. So Harris seems to be in some confusion himself as to what a whistleblower is and just how many of them he is in contact with.

On the Pearce email, Stefan made the point in the podcast that Simon Pearce will have to answer for his email in the light of what he told CAS (and vice versa) and he will either explain it to the tribunal's satisfaction or he won't.

The wider point Stefan also made, and in my view the more telling one, is that these cases don't tend to turn on a single email. What is necessary is for the tribunal to make up its mind on the basis of the overall weight of evidence. In this case, for instance, even if the email points in one direction, the fact that both City's audited accounts and - crucially - Etihad's audited accounts record the full sponsorship amount (which is precisely, as I understand it, what both sets of accounts show and both accounts are consistent with each other) that might be said to have far more weight. This is because the conclusion that both sets of accounts are knowingly false requires high-level collusion between two global companies, and of course the government of Abu Dhabi, is not something you would usually see being established on flimsy evidence.

Besides, it seems to me that the email supports City's case as much as anything else. There is a contract (somewhere) signed on behalf of both companies saying 'Etihad will pay City £X and City will provide Y advertising services in return." The email seems to relate purely to the source of those funds, but it does not detract from the essential point that the contractual liability to pay City is Etihad's, not that of the AD government. Assuming that to be a genuine contract, the PL's case (on this issue) ends at that point. It is irrelevant that Etihad find the sums to pay that from their own reserves, from a rights issue, from loans from the directors or from a hand out from the Abu Dhabi government. They have entered into a legally binding contractual obligation to pay X in return for Y and they could have been sued if they had refused to perform their obligations under that contract.

That is precisely what City's accounts show, and (as I understand it) it is precisely that which the PL have to show was untrue, and known to be untrue when City signed off their accounts.

Good luck with that, guys.
Click to expand...
Anyone who is worried about the upcoming commission should just read this. Probably the best explanation on the most serious allegations the prem have thrown at City. Reading this you can see why Stefan and a few others on here think it’s impossible for the prem to prove that the Etihad or Etisalat deals are a sham.
 
@projectriver seems well within his rights to at the least demand an apology and retraction and could certainly take things further if Mr Harris doesn't watch out but as idiotic as it is for him to make these statements about an individual is it not more idiotic and dangerous to state as fact that the company that Stefan worked for was 'accused of , and CONVICTED of , complex corruption' .... say goodbye to your house Nick!
 
mcfc-a-ok said:
@projectriver seems well within his rights to at the least demand an apology and retraction and could certainly take things further if Mr Harris doesn't watch out but as idiotic as it is for him to make these statements about an individual is it not more idiotic and dangerous to state as fact that the company that Stefan worked for was 'accused of , and CONVICTED of , complex corruption' .... say goodbye to your house Nick!
Click to expand...

Was it Nick Harris that claimed City fans had smashed his windows?
 
Who's the fella he grassed on as his inside man pretty low thing to do out someone who's been giving him info

He's dropped a bollock there he's not even getting a a bit of info off anyone now he'll be a pariah now and good
 
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.