I think his point is not that we haven’t been charged with that - because we have - but why would City feel the need to file inaccurate accounts when there was no FFP in place. Just like why would City hide a couple of million quid a year of Mancini’s contract at a time when we’d just spent £17m on a crock from Blackburn, all that £17m went through the books, and we were posting losses north of £100m.
I guess what he, and I, are trying to say is that we know we’ve been charged with filing inaccurate accounts but it makes no logical sense to have done that.
Our gloves are off I think that's the reason.I don’t believe it’s that simple, editorial stance doesn’t change with evidence of rights or wrong it goes above that. Something has happened between City & the Times & Daily Mail to change the editorial stance.
Code for DRIAFCLike 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.
Again 115 is the deal breaker for the PL and Masters.There has to be a thorough investigation & clear out from the Premier league & clubs. I firmly believe this should be a criminal investigation.
Maybe we have given them a peek at our strategy for the 115. I don’t think they read the CAS verdict properly as their start position was we were guilty.I don’t believe it’s that simple, editorial stance doesn’t change with evidence of rights or wrong it goes above that. Something has happened between City & the Times & Daily Mail to change the editorial stance.
I still find it odd the panel claim there was no agenda against the gulf owned clubs yet describe a massive agenda.
Do you ever sleep mate? lol.The guy gave witness evidence under cross-examination that he didn't mean what was in the email and the arbitrators believed him.
On the one hand, bad here. On the other, good for the club on the 115.
I don’t believe it’s that simple, editorial stance doesn’t change with evidence of rights or wrong it goes above that. Something has happened between City & the Times & Daily Mail to change the editorial stance.
Maybe we have given them a peek at our strategy for the 115. I don’t think they read the CAS verdict properly as their start position was we were guilty.
I am sure we talk to Lawton.