City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Henkeman]

I'm well aware of the PR maxim that says be careful about confirming or denying everything as then failure to do so for subsequent stories leaves you open to suspicion. but this one seems to be (a) a serious accusation and (b) demonstrably false, and it has gone round the world.

So we should be saying something like "This story has no foundation whatsoever. There is no specific investigation by UEFA into these companies, outside the normal FFP processes. Our structure and books are open to scrutiny from UEFA, we have been open with them about our subsidiary companies and their transactions, nothing has been hidden and there has been no attempt to mislead or mis-state our figures. We therefore reject these allegations completely."

The fact we have kept conspicuously silent gives me some hope that we are consulting our lawyers to see if further action is justified and have been in contact with Harris and The Mail.

We were quick enough to sue The Sun (I think) over false allegations that the Sheikh had given all members of the squad expensive watches. If we'll sue over that, then we should certainly sue over this.

I'd be far happier to see us sue Harris than the Daily Fail, they'll be easily able to absorb the cost and will just find another angle to slag us off from whereas that odious little shit has been flinging shit in our direction for quite a while now and a successful lawsuit would not only teach him a lessson but could also seriously impact on his quality of life (not that he has much of one anyway going by his actions).

I doubt very, very much there would be any intention whatever to sue. Libel cases are extremely messy, extremely expensive, awful publicity and very risky. You might at a push get a letter sent to them demanding they retract the article, or issue an apology, or (unspecified) further action would be taken. That's about it.

 

[BobKowalski]

I'm well aware of the PR maxim that says be careful about confirming or denying everything as then failure to do so for subsequent stories leaves you open to suspicion. but this one seems to be (a) a serious accusation and (b) demonstrably false, and it has gone round the world.

So we should be saying something like "This story has no foundation whatsoever. There is no specific investigation by UEFA into these companies, outside the normal FFP processes. Our structure and books are open to scrutiny from UEFA, we have been open with them about our subsidiary companies and their transactions, nothing has been hidden and there has been no attempt to mislead or mis-state our figures. We therefore reject these allegations completely."

The fact we have kept conspicuously silent gives me some hope that we are consulting our lawyers to see if further action is justified and have been in contact with Harris and The Mail.

We were quick enough to sue The Sun (I think) over false allegations that the Sheikh had given all members of the squad expensive watches. If we'll sue over that, then we should certainly sue over this.

Can't see us suing. Giving out free watches is fairly straightforward it either happened or it didn't. In this case we are under scrutiny by UEFA as part of the FFP monitoring period. We may not be under renewed or additional scrutiny but we are under scrutiny and the companies in question will be/are being looked at. You can talk about degrees of scrutiny - and the article certainly over egged it by making it sound more dramatic than it is in reality - but bottom line our accounts are continually reviewed by UEFA.

Besides say we did sue all you then get is "City trying to muzzle the press over its Accounts" stories. "Are City trying to hide the truth?", "City's web of Companies - what lies at the centre?" Blah, blah. Basically you buy a shit storm of bollocks and innuendo that makes the original article look like a City Press release. And if you do sue then make sure everything else in the accounts past, present and future is so squeaky clean you could see your reflection in them because any slip ups or typos will be used against us no matter how innocuous.

Suing over this just ain't worth the grief.

 

[stony]

I'm well aware of the PR maxim that says be careful about confirming or denying everything as then failure to do so for subsequent stories leaves you open to suspicion. but this one seems to be (a) a serious accusation and (b) demonstrably false, and it has gone round the world.

So we should be saying something like "This story has no foundation whatsoever. There is no specific investigation by UEFA into these companies, outside the normal FFP processes. Our structure and books are open to scrutiny from UEFA, we have been open with them about our subsidiary companies and their transactions, nothing has been hidden and there has been no attempt to mislead or mis-state our figures. We therefore reject these allegations completely."

The fact we have kept conspicuously silent gives me some hope that we are consulting our lawyers to see if further action is justified and have been in contact with Harris and The Mail.

We were quick enough to sue The Sun (I think) over false allegations that the Sheikh had given all members of the squad expensive watches. If we'll sue over that, then we should certainly sue over this.

I'd be far happier to see us sue Harris than the Daily Fail, they'll be easily able to absorb the cost and will just find another angle to slag us off from whereas that odious little shit has been flinging shit in our direction for quite a while now and a successful lawsuit would not only teach him a lessson but could also seriously impact on his quality of life (not that he has much of one anyway going by his actions).

I'd rather we sued the individual rather than the organisation too. Take the **** to the fucking cleaners, bankrupt him if we can, and let the rest of them take notice.
It's easy to spew bile and tell lies when the company lawyers are behind you. I doubt many of these cockroaches would be so brave if they knew we would come after them personally.

 

[FanchesterCity]

City would have a hard time suing him for libel right now. Under the Defamation Act they'd have to prove they've suffered serious harm as a result.
Also, they'd have to prove his allegations where untrue, which might not be all that easy.

His claim about Lampard appears to be correct
His claim about Mangala is probably correct
His claim about failing FFP is correct.
His claim about UEFA investigating us is still more than vague and use of words like 'may' instead of 'are' go a long way to covering people's arses.

The Defamation Act was changed in 2013 and makes it more difficult (many argue) to sue for libel or slander.

In deciding serious harm, 'damaged reputation' isn't really enough. For a body that makes a profit (i.e. City) there has to be a serious financial loss (or likelihood of such).

 

[stony]

City would have a hard time suing him for libel right now. Under the Defamation Act they'd have to prove they've suffered serious harm as a result.
Also, they'd have to prove his allegations where untrue, which might not be all that easy.

His claim about Lampard appears to be correct
His claim about Mangala is probably correct
His claim about failing FFP is correct.
His claim about UEFA investigating us is still more than vague and use of words like 'may' instead of 'are' go a long way to covering people's arses.

The Defamation Act was changed in 2013 and makes it more difficult (many argue) to sue for libel or slander.

In deciding serious harm, 'damaged reputation' isn't really enough. For a body that makes a profit (i.e. City) there has to be a serious financial loss (or likelihood of such).

In that case, I hope someone breaks into his house and shits in his cornflakes.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I'm well aware of the PR maxim that says be careful about confirming or denying everything as then failure to do so for subsequent stories leaves you open to suspicion. but this one seems to be (a) a serious accusation and (b) demonstrably false, and it has gone round the world.

So we should be saying something like "This story has no foundation whatsoever. There is no specific investigation by UEFA into these companies, outside the normal FFP processes. Our structure and books are open to scrutiny from UEFA, we have been open with them about our subsidiary companies and their transactions, nothing has been hidden and there has been no attempt to mislead or mis-state our figures. We therefore reject these allegations completely."

The fact we have kept conspicuously silent gives me some hope that we are consulting our lawyers to see if further action is justified and have been in contact with Harris and The Mail.

We were quick enough to sue The Sun (I think) over false allegations that the Sheikh had given all members of the squad expensive watches. If we'll sue over that, then we should certainly sue over this.

Can't see us suing. Giving out free watches is fairly straightforward it either happened or it didn't. In this case we are under scrutiny by UEFA as part of the FFP monitoring period. We may not be under renewed or additional scrutiny but we are under scrutiny and the companies in question will be/are being looked at. You can talk about degrees of scrutiny - and the article certainly over egged it by making it sound more dramatic than it is in reality - but bottom line our accounts are continually reviewed by UEFA.

Besides say we did sue all you then get is "City trying to muzzle the press over its Accounts" stories. "Are City trying to hide the truth?", "City's web of Companies - what lies at the centre?" Blah, blah. Basically you buy a shit storm of bollocks and innuendo that makes the original article look like a City Press release. And if you do sue then make sure everything else in the accounts past, present and future is so squeaky clean you could see your reflection in them because any slip ups or typos will be used against us no matter how innocuous.

Suing over this just ain't worth the grief.

You're dead right. There's enough ambiguity and vagueness in this article I'm sure to make this bombproof. The journalist sends his info to some secretary at UEFA, she says "I will pass it on". An investigation is taking place.

As you say, it isn't worth the aggro, costs and repercussions. It's like all this talk about how City "should be banning journalists". What do people think the journalists will write if we start doing that?

If City want to bite back subtly they can. There are many different ways, including getting the true facts out to better journalists to run. That's what this clown is hinting at in that Twitter exchange about "access to second rate players" or whatever.

 

[moomba]

His claim about Lampard appears to be correct
His claim about Mangala is probably correct
His claim about failing FFP is correct.
His claim about UEFA investigating us is still more than vague and use of words like 'may' instead of 'are' go a long way to covering people's arses.

I'd agree with that although his use of the word lie isn't acceptable IMO.

Two things we need to do on this IMO. First, make sure everything is above board. All of the above is an issue if we are appearing to be dishonest, misleading or secretive about it. Second, if we have done nothing wrong on the subsidiaries (which seems the case to me) then just set out the facts, set out how we have co-operated with UEFA throughout and how we have been open and honest.

Just makes NHIAC and his story look stupid, and thats good enough to me.

 

[FanchesterCity]

City would have a hard time suing him for libel right now. Under the Defamation Act they'd have to prove they've suffered serious harm as a result.
Also, they'd have to prove his allegations where untrue, which might not be all that easy.

His claim about Lampard appears to be correct
His claim about Mangala is probably correct
His claim about failing FFP is correct.
His claim about UEFA investigating us is still more than vague and use of words like 'may' instead of 'are' go a long way to covering people's arses.

The Defamation Act was changed in 2013 and makes it more difficult (many argue) to sue for libel or slander.

In deciding serious harm, 'damaged reputation' isn't really enough. For a body that makes a profit (i.e. City) there has to be a serious financial loss (or likelihood of such).

In that case, I hope someone breaks into his house and shits in his cornflakes.

Snap, crackle and plop?

 

[stony]

I'm well aware of the PR maxim that says be careful about confirming or denying everything as then failure to do so for subsequent stories leaves you open to suspicion. but this one seems to be (a) a serious accusation and (b) demonstrably false, and it has gone round the world.

So we should be saying something like "This story has no foundation whatsoever. There is no specific investigation by UEFA into these companies, outside the normal FFP processes. Our structure and books are open to scrutiny from UEFA, we have been open with them about our subsidiary companies and their transactions, nothing has been hidden and there has been no attempt to mislead or mis-state our figures. We therefore reject these allegations completely."

The fact we have kept conspicuously silent gives me some hope that we are consulting our lawyers to see if further action is justified and have been in contact with Harris and The Mail.

We were quick enough to sue The Sun (I think) over false allegations that the Sheikh had given all members of the squad expensive watches. If we'll sue over that, then we should certainly sue over this.

Can't see us suing. Giving out free watches is fairly straightforward it either happened or it didn't. In this case we are under scrutiny by UEFA as part of the FFP monitoring period. We may not be under renewed or additional scrutiny but we are under scrutiny and the companies in question will be/are being looked at. You can talk about degrees of scrutiny - and the article certainly over egged it by making it sound more dramatic than it is in reality - but bottom line our accounts are continually reviewed by UEFA.

Besides say we did sue all you then get is "City trying to muzzle the press over its Accounts" stories. "Are City trying to hide the truth?", "City's web of Companies - what lies at the centre?" Blah, blah. Basically you buy a shit storm of bollocks and innuendo that makes the original article look like a City Press release. And if you do sue then make sure everything else in the accounts past, present and future is so squeaky clean you could see your reflection in them because any slip ups or typos will be used against us no matter how innocuous.

Suing over this just ain't worth the grief.

You're dead right. There's enough ambiguity and vagueness in this article I'm sure to make this bombproof. The journalist sends his info to some secretary at UEFA, she says "I will pass it on". An investigation is taking place.

As you say, it isn't worth the aggro, costs and repercussions. It's like all this talk about how City "should be banning journalists". What do people think the journalists will write if we start doing that?

If City want to bite back subtly they can. There are many different ways, including getting the true facts out to better journalists to run. That's what this clown is hinting at in that Twitter exchange about "access to second rate players" or whatever.

I felt with his twitter comments he was trying to goad the club into banning him, he probably already has an article written about how we've tried to "hide the truth" by banning him.

 

[IanBishopsHaircut]

It's that 'top 3 City lies' that got me angry