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

[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.

Snap, crackle and plop?

Haha

 

[SilverFox2]

I remember quite some time agoI posted about City changing the way football clubs do business and that FFP and the rest of the football world will take a decade to catch up.

We have seen even at the start of the CFG family of clubs that that is now proving to be the case.

Journalists are also showing how their opinions and thought processes are well behind the curve and in the case of some are set in aspic.

What amazes me though is the lack of movement by any other club to start the process of modernisation to match the vision of CFG.

The MCFC brand started this decade way behind all the other major European brands but the way things are moving it wont be long until the sales of merchandise etc from CFG clubs will dwarf all the others.

The real problem for MCFC and CFG is to move at a pace which doesnt scare UEFA too much.

Without FFP where would CFG be now?

Other clubs are either unable or unwilling to compete with CFGs strategy so in a way they are relying on FFP via UEFA to stop the plan.

For some reason they cannot see that ADUG is an investment company that does exactly that to maximise its share of the global bonanza football promises. They much prefer to keep things as they are and carve up the profits so in a way they still see FFP as a brake on CFG but forget that our lead in global structuring is the one they should at least be modernising towards.

The problem I suppose for UEFA is that they cover only a small geographical area so their jurisdiction may have limited impact ?

 

[FanchesterCity]

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.

Sadly, to anybody outside the City camp, and to a fair few inside, the general perception is that we did lie.
We can't have it both ways... claim we are highly competent with a world class level of professionalism, then mistake 'loan' deals etc.
The other mistakes could be argued to be a lie (in as much as they weren't true).

Lie is a powerful word though, and does suggest a deliberate deception, which is precisely his intent. Sadly, the vast majority of the general public would agree with him and most courts would too.

 

[moomba]

Sadly, to anybody outside the City camp, and to a fair few inside, the general perception is that we did lie.

The reason for that is because of "journalists" like this. The general perception outside the City camp is that we are cheats, yet we shouldnt allow people to put that in print either.

I would like to see his evidence that we lied on FFP.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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).

The article performs the age old journalists' trick (or at least those operating at the bargain basement) of compiling a number of assertions: some of which are true, further ones which are possibly true and others which are hard to disprove and then arriving at a tenuous, tendentious and pre-determined conclusion based around them.

The conclusion won't be definitively stated, but rather, implied and suggested. It's a ****'s trick.

It's an MO which requires a complete lack of professional self-respect, a significant amount of intellectual dishonesty with a heavy dose of spinelessness thrown into the mix.

People who operate in such a way doubtless possess a micro-penis of the first order.

 

[aguero93:20]

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.

Nah, let's just brick his fucking windows.

Speaking of the ****: http://journalisted.com/nick-harris#tab-bio

Education
No education entered

Surprise, surprise.

 

[Henkeman]

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).

The article performs the age old journalists' trick (or at least those operating at the bargain basement) of compiling a number of assertions: some of which are true, further ones which are possibly true and others which are hard to disprove and then arriving at a tenuous and tendentious conclusion based around them.

The conclusion won't be definitively stated, but rather, implied and suggested. It's a c**t's trick.

It's an MO which requires a complete lack of professional self-respect, a significant amount of intellectual dishonesty with a heavy dose of spinelessness thrown into the mix.

People who operate in such a way doubtless possess a micro-penis of the first order.

And are disrespecful motherfuckers.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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).

The article performs the age old journalists' trick (or at least those operating at the bargain basement) of compiling a number of assertions: some of which are true, further ones which are possibly true and others which are hard to disprove and then arriving at a tenuous and tendentious conclusion based around them.

The conclusion won't be definitively stated, but rather, implied and suggested. It's a c**t's trick.

It's an MO which requires a complete lack of professional self-respect, a significant amount of intellectual dishonesty with a heavy dose of spinelessness thrown into the mix.

People who operate in such a way doubtless possess a micro-penis of the first order.

And are disrespecful motherfuckers.

They are disrespectful motherfuckers.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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 c**t 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.

We can sue both the person who wrote it and the one who published it. But use of the word "sue" was wrong. We should be taking the necessary steps, legal or otherwise, to get a retraction. I've had this explained as:
1) Speak to the journalist.
2) If no satisfaction, speak to his Editor and then the publisher if necessary.
3) If they refuse to retract then consult lawyers.
4) If the lawyers agree we have a case, then they write to the people concerned.
5) If they still don't retract then we sue.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Re: City & FFP (continued)

A casino is again being mooted. Not in its previous form or footprint, however.

Perhaps under the umbrella of the hotel and wider leisure facility.

We will also be getting a Hakkasan :)

I was just thinking about the Hakkasan before, thinking it could be ideal if the super-casino / entertainment complex is a viable option for the collar site. I googled it to find out more about it's Vegas operation, and came across this article in Forbes which explains more about Sheikh Mansour's involvement.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2013/08/15/hakkasan-evolution-growing-from-las-vegas-megaclub-to-global-lifestyle-brand/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/201 ... yle-brand/</a>