I have read it. Have you?
They have successfully defended many points. They will consider that a significant win.
Blimey. Ever done any media? Press take the sound bites they want and twist it eg when stefan says relegation might be a remedy and they don’t add “but very unlikely” codicil. Look at headlines today where they all use the outcome for their previous narrative. Even Martin Samuel (which of course we all love to read). I for one am pleased to hear Stefan correcting Jordan et al and presenting our case. If he was two one sided he wouldn’t get on the radio - it’s a tricky balance to pull off.I pointed out Stefan's motives in the FFP thread, & was rounded on by the forum's chief Yesterdays Man for it, but I'm glad others are beginning to sense what I did.
Stefan's become known in the mainstream media as some sort of City Insider & it seems his doom & gloom assessments are more about building on his growing public platform, than citing rational facts.
It's as simple as this imo... If City are guilty of what amounts to massive fraud, where are HMRC, FCA & the Serious Fraud Squad?
Our company accounts have been audited & certified by one of the world's leading auditors, & are available to view at Companies House. What additional info is necessary regarding PSR etc?
Once these tribunal processes are over, of what use will Stefan be to Talk Shite?
I've recently seen him popping up on my news feed as a "City Insider" discussing how much we've got to spend in January & on which transfer targets.
This is why I pointed out that his assessments may be factual, but I suspected they're also given with Stefan's long-term media future in mind.
It does City no favours to see headlines like: "City Insider: City likely to be relegated & sued our of existence!". It's hyperbole we can do without, hence why I no longer read anything Stefan has to say. He's quite evidently got a personal media agenda to nurture.
If they are so sure they won why does the key word from the judgment, ‘unlawful’, not appear in the 1,200 word PL statement? If that finding is insignificant then why not refer to it as per the judgment. It’s because they know its significance and want to avoid it.You'd also assume that the clubs legal team have pronounced it a win as the statement yesterday and the subsequent letter are very strongly worded. If they were trying to put a gloss on the outcome they would be far more 'open to interpretation' as the PL response is.
What they consider a win is irrelevant. On what planet has a governing body won a case in which they have been found to have abused their position of dominance and implemented rules that are found to be unlawful, unfair and unreasonable?