Like many pieces by Roan about City that have gone before, the form is telling. The story here is the that PL have fundamentally changed position on this judgment through the course of the week, despite stridently asserting an earlier position that allowed them to establish a narrative in the media that the outcome had been a draw, or possibly even a small win for them. This repositioning from the PL means the basis for this narrative has gone. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.
City said in their letter to other clubs that the PL statement was misleading and inaccurate, which this subsequent PL letter manifestly confirms. City’s were correct in what they were asserting. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.
The PL thereby did not attain sone sort of draw from this determination that could be dealt with on an ex tempore basis as they had previously claimed, and City were correct when they took the unusual step of pointing that out to their fellow members. City have been wholly vindicated on this point. And the PL shown to be wrong. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.
That is the story. And yet the piece plainly doesn’t present it like that.
Those two core factors are not tied together in the piece in a way that makes that the story. They are dissipated throughout the piece and way that misdirects the reader away from what is the fundamental story in relation to this statement. I have no doubt this was a conscious approach by Roan, who as you say, finished off the piece with the obligatory Pavlovian 115 reference, again to misdirect the reader from what has happened here.
It’s a fundamentally dishonest piece of journalism.