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:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
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...
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten about that. Ian Herbert wrote it, IIRC. He took the view that the case was in City's name so the club should be hammered, and didn't allude at all to the context.

The principle was exactly the same as if I were involved in a road traffic accident, had injured the other party, was viewed as being at fault and for some reason the case went to trial with me being sued because the insurers couldn't reach a settlement. My insurers, under the terms of my policy, would have full conduct of the case. That's exactly the same as City in the Bennell case.

If they chose to try and trash the reputation of the claimant by pointing to alcohol problems or mental health issues as likely to have been at the root of contributory negligence, I might well be horrified at the prospect. I'd have zero influence over what happened in the proceedings, though. Again, exactly the same for City regarding Bennell giving evidence.

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 finished my piece of work and have found it. The link to a PDF version of the judgment is here: Judgment in TVZ -v- Manchester City Football Club. I runs to 134 pages, so I expect most people won't want to wade through looking for the relevant bit. Let me tell you, then, that you want numbered paragraph 153.

As for what this means, let me point you to an article from May of this year on the website of Fieldfisher, a highly-rated international law firm with its HQ in London and an office in Manchester: Expert witnesses: The independence factor. They discuss issues arising from a recent case, but they have a helpful discussion of the nature of expert evidence as well:

What is an expert witness?

An expert is ‘a person who, through specialist training, study, or experience, is able to provide a court, tribunal, or hearing with relevant scientific, technical, or professional information or opinion, based on skills, expertise, or knowledge, that is likely to be beyond the experience and knowledge of the representing lawyers, judge, jury or panel’ (per Jackson and Powell on Professional Liability).

The main difference between an expert witness and a witness of fact (ie. an ordinary witness) is that the expert can provide an opinion, whereas the witness of fact may only give factual evidence.

The rules on expert witnesses in the courts of England and Wales are governed by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.35.

When is expert evidence required?

Expert evidence is required when the issues in dispute are beyond the knowledge of the presiding court.
Click to expand...
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
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...
Click to expand...
Ahh, wrong case. I blame that on petrusha for putting it in this thread.

I'm just going to have to stop posting for awhile, the wife has been very poorly for a bit now and I struggle to recall what day of the week it is at the moment.
 
Centurions said:
Ahh, wrong case. I blame that on petrusha for putting it in this thread.

I'm just going to have to stop posting for awhile, the wife has been very poorly for a bit now and I struggle to recall what day of the week it is at the moment.
Click to expand...

No need for apologising, whatsoever!

Wishing your wife a speedy recovery, mate.
 
Cityfan1977 said:
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.
The real story is not a dodgy new partner for City but they are all at it Liverpool, United, Leicester, Wolves, Southampton everyone, he should investigate how much money there are in it for these club's, why does Premier league alow it, also he doesn't say how much City is paid vonder why.
Click to expand...
Fascinating video. Do you know when it was first posted?
Makes Harris look a know nowt, which of course he is.
 
Centurions said:
Ahh, wrong case. I blame that on petrusha for putting it in this thread.

I'm just going to have to stop posting for awhile, the wife has been very poorly for a bit now and I struggle to recall what day of the week it is at the moment.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, mate. I'm afraid that I saw how riled Harris was by the expert thing and I know he snoops around on here a bit. So whenever he's mentioned, I shoehorn I'm a reminder that the High Court didn't see him as an expert.

Remember that, Nick? You aren't an expert. The judge didn't think so and not does anyone with an IQ of more than 50.

Wish your wife a speedy recovery. Hang in there.
 
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...
An absolute gem of a post. You know your stuff !!! Could I ask a question?? Say City potentially did something wrong..Perhaps a borderline decision in retrospect. Do you hold your hands up and admit guilt, which could be detrimental, or do you say, well in our eyes, we acted in good faith, so prove we did something wrong ? i ask this in light of the ongoing PL investigation and just wonder if admitting guilt may not be the best approach.

I personally am sick and tired hearing of these pathetic snippets about our club when truthfully I can not remember one article which deals with the absolute benefit City have made for the local community.
 
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