CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great post and I'd like to read more about this high court position re his competency. Would somebody mind directing me if possible? Thanks.
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wonderful stuff Peter and worth more than a like. I hope Harris reads it while obsessively stalking on BM but even if he did none of the facts would sink in because he's the original blinkered crackpot.
 
Bluewonder said:
Great post and I'd like to read more about this high court position re his competency. Would somebody mind directing me if possible? Thanks.
Click to expand...
I can't find a link to it but he offered himself up as "an expert" on football finance (to CAS presumably). They basically laughed in his face and declined his kind offer. He just wanted a front row seat so he could Tweet his usual diatribe while claiming he had inside knowledge.

Please ignore :(
 
Last edited:
Centurions said:
I can't find a link to it but he offered himself up as "an expert" on football finance (to CAS presumably). They basically laughed in his face and declined his kind offer. He just wanted a front row seat so he could Tweet his usual diatribe while claiming he had inside knowledge.
Click to expand...

He was called as an 'expert witness', with regards players' wages in the sex abuse case brought against our insurers.

The judge stated he could not be considered an expert on whether any of these kids would have made it, nor that they would now be earning £100k a week, so the jury were asked to disregard his 'expert' opinion.

Funnily enough, Daily Mail then chose to run a piece that City had called Bennell as a witness for the club's defence.

Strangely choosing to omit he had been called by the insurers...
 
Bluewonder said:
Great post and I'd like to read more about this high court position re his competency. Would somebody mind directing me if possible? Thanks.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it's in the thread about City being sued (unsuccessfully) by victims of Barry Bennell who declined to accept offers going through the compensation scheme that the club had set up. Harris was engaged by the claimants' lawyers to provide evidence to the High Court about what the victims might have earned had they gone on and enjoyed professional careers. I don't have time to look it out now as work is a bit busy, but there's a transcript in the thread.

I have no problem with Nick for that (one of the few things over which I don't have any problem with him). He was presumably helping out in what seemed to him a valid cause. Unfortunately, the solicitors acting for the claimants were a bunch of ambulance-chasing shysters.

The transcript of the case contained a summary of Nick's evidence, which was basically all taken from publicly available sources. It was prefaced by the judge's comment to the effect that there'd been a lively debate between over whether Harris should be accepted by the Court as an expert witness, noting that he duly wasn't. I should stress here that this is a judgement based on strict legal criteria in the context of litigation and actually doesn't express a view on his competency. The court did hear his evidence and the fact that he was an ordinary rather than an expert witness probably didn't have much effect on anything.

Nonetheless, it was amusing for the Court to have refused to accept Harris in that case as someone who should be treated as an expert. I had a laugh at Nick's expense about it at the time, and a couple of other people on here mentioned it subsequently. When he saw one such exchange, he embarked on an enraged rant on Twitter, accusing us of mocking Bennell's victims - a laughable assertion.

On the basis that anything capable of infuriating Nick Harris must be a good thing, I make it my business to refer to it in every post I make aimed at exposing Harris for what he is. You aren't an expert, Nick - even a High Court judge has expressly rejected the notion that you are!
 
Last edited:
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.