I just watched this video . The question is has Harris ? I bet he knows this but his goal is to paint City as the bad guys as possible.My guess is these betting companies are made for Chinese audiences, where betting is illegal.
Hence these companies can only legally advertise abroad, on broadcasts shown in China. The Premier League is perfect. You will find a load of these legal/illegal Chinese betting companies all over football and none have any real business in the countries the clubs are in so usually just have template websites and twitter accounts.
Warwick Davis likes this postGood on them for employing half people, that's what I say.
No idea why anybody is getting upset by this. This story came out originally in September and the club are obviously happy to continue with the regional partnership
Excellent post my friend. It's refreshing to read something so eloquent, erudite and informative on this forum for once.I haven't read the piece. I've better things to do with my life, and I'd be according anything with Nick Harris's byline excessive respect if I printed it out on tissue paper then wiped my arse on it. Nonetheless, I can comment on the issues that I understand he raised.
First, he seems to be trying to insinuate that a low-level sponsorship deal he goes out of his way to paint as dodgy is symptomatic of the entire revenue generated by MCFC's commercial operation. That's feeble, spurious bullshit even by his own standards. This sponsorship likely accounts for well under 0.5% of City's total commercial income, and he would, if he could, cite other similarly dubious deals with others among our sponsors whose fees, taken together, constitute a much more significant proportion of MCFC's commercial income. That he doesn't speaks volumes.
Second, this information has been out there since being revealed in the football magazine Josimar four months ago. That's plenty of time for MCFC to have checked things and pulled the deal if the circumstances warranted it. They haven't. Now, that in itself doesn't mean it isn't dodgy, but the club is clearly comfortable and that's potentially telling. Any reporter acting in good faith would at least try to assess why City might be taking this stance. Nick doesn't, which shows him up for what we know him to be: a malevolent dickhead attempting a smear.
Third, Harris claimed on Twitter that City's mention of the PL investigation in the accounts was the first time we'd referred to it in the financial statements. This is simply untrue. Exactly the same statement was in the previous set of accounts, and it may even have been in the one before that as well (I haven't had time to check). If Nick can't even be accurate with regard to something so basic, how can we treat anything else he says as credible?
Fourth, in the same tweet, Know-nowt Nick suggested that City's mention of the PL investigation in our accounts might reflect an awareness on City's part that the investigation would produce an outcome unfavourable to the club. Yet we know that MCFC don't think so, and we can presuppose that neither do the auditors or the club's legal advisers. This is because no provision is included in the accounts for this matter (for those unfamiliar with the terminology, making a provision means, in this context, setting aside money to meet an expected future expense, such as any prospective PL fine).
Of course, Nick isn't interested in the truth but nor - despite his own belief to the contrary - does he have much of as grasp of the field he's writing about. He won't know what happens in situations such as these, but I do. The auditors will write to City's solicitors asking for details of any matters the latter might be aware of that could impact the bottom line in future periods. The auditors can follow up and have further discussions if the reply raises any doubts. The lack of a provision as the outcome of this process makes the collective view clear.
This isn't conclusive, as the professionals can sometimes find their evaluations not subsequently borne out in fact. But what we can say is that the view of MCFC's auditors and external legal advisers have vastly more worth than the pitiful ramblings of a bad-faith, dull-witted prig like Nick Harris.
Finally, given the tantrum he threw when he read on here nine months ago that this forum had discovered the position of the High Court when the suggestion was made that Harris should give evidence as an expert witness, we'd be remiss not to refer to the fact again here. The judge was well aware that you're no expert, Nick. You pontificate but know fuck all. We've long since understood that and we won't let you forget it.
Really well put, my take from that is nick is a bitter, clueless, disingenuous **** whose views are best avoided.I haven't read the piece. I've better things to do with my life, and I'd be according anything with Nick Harris's byline excessive respect if I printed it out on tissue paper then wiped my arse on it. Nonetheless, I can comment on the issues that I understand he raised.
First, he seems to be trying to insinuate that a low-level sponsorship deal he goes out of his way to paint as dodgy is symptomatic of the entire revenue generated by MCFC's commercial operation. That's feeble, spurious bullshit even by his own standards. This sponsorship likely accounts for well under 0.5% of City's total commercial income, and he would, if he could, cite other similarly dubious deals with others among our sponsors whose fees, taken together, constitute a much more significant proportion of MCFC's commercial income. That he doesn't speaks volumes.
Second, this information has been out there since being revealed in the football magazine Josimar four months ago. That's plenty of time for MCFC to have checked things and pulled the deal if the circumstances warranted it. They haven't. Now, that in itself doesn't mean it isn't dodgy, but the club is clearly comfortable and that's potentially telling. Any reporter acting in good faith would at least try to assess why City might be taking this stance. Nick doesn't, which shows him up for what we know him to be: a malevolent dickhead attempting a smear.
Third, Harris claimed on Twitter that City's mention of the PL investigation in the accounts was the first time we'd referred to it in the financial statements. This is simply untrue. Exactly the same statement was in the previous set of accounts, and it may even have been in the one before that as well (I haven't had time to check). If Nick can't even be accurate with regard to something so basic, how can we treat anything else he says as credible?
Fourth, in the same tweet, Know-nowt Nick suggested that City's mention of the PL investigation in our accounts might reflect an awareness on City's part that the investigation would produce an outcome unfavourable to the club. Yet we know that MCFC don't think so, and we can presuppose that neither do the auditors or the club's legal advisers. This is because no provision is included in the accounts for this matter (for those unfamiliar with the terminology, making a provision means, in this context, setting aside money to meet an expected future expense, such as any prospective PL fine).
Of course, Nick isn't interested in the truth but nor - despite his own belief to the contrary - does he have much of as grasp of the field he's writing about. He won't know what happens in situations such as these, but I do. The auditors will write to City's solicitors asking for details of any matters the latter might be aware of that could impact the bottom line in future periods. The auditors can follow up and have further discussions if the reply raises any doubts. The lack of a provision as the outcome of this process makes the collective view clear.
This isn't conclusive, as the professionals can sometimes find their evaluations not subsequently borne out in fact. But what we can say is that the view of MCFC's auditors and external legal advisers have vastly more worth than the pitiful ramblings of a bad-faith, dull-witted prig like Nick Harris.
Finally, given the tantrum he threw when he read on here nine months ago that this forum had discovered the position of the High Court when the suggestion was made that Harris should give evidence as an expert witness, we'd be remiss not to refer to the fact again here. The judge was well aware that you're no expert, Nick. You pontificate but know fuck all. We've long since understood that and we won't let you forget it.