Ultimately, I will be shocked if anything comes of this. Hacking is illegal so for these emails to be actually looked at by UEFA, the source of the leaks would have to be identified. I suspect that even Der Spiegel don't even know the identity of the leaker/hacker. Even the Football Leaks book only refers to him as John from Portugal.
So without identifying the origin, how can UEFA check the validity of them? Is it outside the realms of possibility that these emails could have been edited or altered? I know that's a reach and probably sounds like a bit of a straw-man argument, but without identifying the originator of the leaks, you can't really vouch for the validity of them. You certainly can't just take them at face value and unquestionably accept everything in them as fact.
I must say, the reaction in the press is hysterical, but not surprising given the loudest journo's on this particularly subject are supporters of our rivals. Some of the stuff being spouted though is absolute nonsensical and appear to be acts of desperation to add their own input into a story which they have just purged from a different newspaper. Unfortunately, these little bits of 'additional info' tend to be poorly researched.
For example, I had an argument with a certain Nick Harris on Twitter who argued that we shouldn't' be claiming any sponsorship for the naming rights of the stadium (meaning the Etihad deal should purely be a shirt only deal) because we don't own the stadium. However, had he done his research, he would have known that we pay an annual fee of £3m for full ownership of the naming rights and have done so for the last 8 years. His next argument was that this fee wasn't consistent with the size of the income generated by the sponsorship. As an argument in itself, this is ridiculous. He didn't stop there because he then moved onto the 'opaque' nature of the deal with Manchester City Council and how our stadium still had not benefited the taxpayer. As if the East Manchester regeneration, funded by ADUG, isn't benefiting the local economy/environment. Basically, journo's are using it as an excuse to spew their guts up over a variety of other non related issues. But everything they seem to allude to is so poorly researched and unbalanced that they can't actually engage in debate about their viewpoint......because it's not actually their own viewpoint. They're just really angry and jealous and using re-hashed articles and stories to display their anger. They're not interested in portraying any balance, and that's where it stops being journalism, and actually starts becoming an attack.
I've seen other journo's talking how we paid UEFA a 'backhander' through Infantino. Again, what? Surely that's a settlement? I've also read about how we have committed legal fraud. Again, absolute fiddlesticks. A shareholder can legally fulfil financial obligations on behalf of the company he/she holds shares in. It may be deceitful in terms of FFP but again, the only people defending FFP are supporters of clubs who feel threatened by the emergence of us and PSG. From my point of view, I find it impossible to get angry about a club finding ways around a ridiculously unfair rule, particularly when that rule has been brought in to stop a specific set of teams. From a legal standpoint, FFP is murkier than any of our dealings. It's not really illegal, but it's not really legal either. It's such a grey area that UEFA probably don't want to take their chances in court. The process would cost a lot of money, would be lengthy and they could actually lose. I suspect that it will fail because of how it restricts competition. And from a business stand point, how can UEFA really prevent an organisation from increasing their value through the purchase of assets? Certainly by EU Law, it can't.
So all in all, all of the above is just in-line with the natural flow of anti-city journalism within the British media. It's no longer balanced. Even some of the football podcasts no longer speak about City's dominance on the pitch. We are only a top news story if there's something negative to say. Point in case, we beat Shaktar 6-0 and The Guardian pod lead with the Sterling penalty, as did every other media outlet. It was hardly game-defining, but it does give the media a chance to attack Sterling again. I didn't see this cry for honesty when Ashley Young nearly broke Aguero's leg in the derby, or when Boly scored with his hand, or when Calvert-Lewin went down holding his face when Walker shoulder barged him. It seems fine when it happens against us because it 'even's-up our dominance and gives the game 'more balance'. If only the media would apply that balance to their reporting. Wankers.
