Media discussion - 2024/25

mscenterh750 said:
Fuck me I used to go to the same winter nets in the 90s.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, you youngsters … I went there in 1970. One of the Lancashire players used to coach the kids there, Peter Lever was our year and I think David Hughes did the year after. I think it’s a car park for Christie’s these days.
 
Doctor Jimmy and Mr Jim said:
It's a typical Ronay article and nothing hugely new. The only point I agree with him is that whatever the outcome - City win the case or City lose the case - the PL is f*cked either way and it's all of their own making. I'm not sure I agree with his third outcome, some sort of compromise. The overwhelming impression is that we want this put to bed once and for all and won't accept a compromise. And if the 'irrefutable evidence' is as stated, why should we?
Click to expand...
To be fair, once Khaldoon stated that we had irrefutable evidence that we have done nothing wrong, there was absolutely no chance of us backing down and taking anything other than cleared on all grounds.

Taking any form of punishment or compromise would mean were, in some way, guilty as charged. And we can’t have that.
 
Anti City bilge means I just get The Times at the week end.

TV review of Sport today is by Alyson Rudd. In a short preview of our game she points out the possibility of us being relegated.

Tiresome and predictable.

Although she didn’t crowbar her beloved LFC into the column!!!
 
TinFoilHat said:
The other Jim White (Torygraph?) on 5live.

"City lose they must be relegated. If they win, then the PL is in a mess as they couldn't make 115 charges stick"
Click to expand...

But City could be innocent and nothing to do with 'couldn't make 115 charges stick' surely the most important thing here is the correct outcome.

If guilty you wouldn't need to make them stick ! You only would say that as City are innocent.

It seems dont everyone want a fair hearing, everyone else says we are guilty 100%.
All I want is a fair hearing as do City
 
Bellamy's Caddy said:
That fella has been re hashing the same article for years. I'm convinced he just sticks it through Chat GPT. He's a parody of himself at this point.

I read his latest word soup and it made me laugh that he referenced part of our legal defence will be citing the PL case as based on 'inadmissible evidence' yet Ronay continues to legitimise the emails as 'leaked' as if the hacker was some kind of noble whistle-blower, and not a career criminal who is currently in jail for extortion.
Click to expand...
Barmy Droneaway is actually a qualified lawyer, who worked for a 'magic circle' law firm before going into 'journalism'. You could argue that was their gain and our loss but you'd hope he'd bring some element of his legal training and experience into articles like these. Such as, for instance, reading legal documents like the CAS verdict.

He repeats the tired, false narrative that time-barring of key evidence was crucial to the outcome, and that the Etihad contract was significantly overvalued. Yet CAS examined three years of that contract and found that:
(a) there was no evidence it was funded covertly by ADUG.
(b) there was cogent evidence that the 'surplus' funding came from central marketing funds managed by the Executive Council/Tourist Authority
(c) the contract appeared to be fair value commercially for what Etihad were getting.
(d) Etihad received commensurate value from the contract, in terms of the exposure it gave them.

In other words, a legitimate and fair value contract. I've also explained that the cashflow timing was flexible but the accruals basis of accounting only allows us to declare the contractual value of the sponsorship, which was £60m a year. It's typical in kit contracts for the club to take a lump sum up front and a smaller payment annually, but unless the contract is specific about the up-front payment, or the way that the payments will be made, the club accounts will only reflect the contract's annualised value. Is that also dodgy?

Droneaway concludes that the PL could be in severe difficulties if we win this case but manifestly fails to understand why that would be. Rather than the (again) fake narrative that we can win because we have the more expensive lawyers, or recognise that we might actually get the IC to apply the law about admissible evidence or limitation periods (which he should be aware of), he paints a potential victory for us that's based on politics or loopholes, rather than the proper application of the appropriate laws and rules.

What he should be asking is why, in the face of the CAS verdict, the PL came to issue these charges, what the process behind their thinking was and who potentially pressured them into bringing an expensive and potentially disastrous (for them) case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.