Media discussion - 2024/25

give it to gordon said:
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
Click to expand...

I took that snippet (without having read the original article) as meaning that if you bring 115 charges, you really ought to have something conclusive.

Bring 1 or 2 charges and losing is one of those things.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
I took that snippet (without having read the original article) as meaning that if you bring 115 charges, you really ought to have something conclusive.

Bring 1 or 2 charges and losing is one of those things.
Click to expand...
A huge element with the quantity and poor construction (long grass, duplicate charges etc) is about chucking enough shit to make sure some sticks. Even tossers like Jordan admit the 115 actually boil down to around 5 things.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

All fair points. And whilst I think pressure from the usual suspects led to the PL continuing the investigation after CAS, I think it is City rather than the other clubs who have manoeuvred the PL into an independent panel. Withholding of key external evidence, refusal to settle, and the like gave the PL nowhere to go other than a referral to the disciplinary process. The club knew what they were doing.

Just another reason I am extremely confident the club will prevail on all the most serious charges at the very least. The club wouldn't have done that unless they were extremely confident, and that's good enough for me.

Unlike in a settlement, all the detail will come out in the panel's reasons document.
 
mancboy said:
So ferran is working with fifa on how to sell and broadcast the club world cup, that is the thing to remember in the grand scheme of things england is a very small place and media here is a minor irritation.
Click to expand...
England (or UK) is where most of us live and have to suffer from the constant barrage of negativity. Its like having the most beautiful perfect partner in the world and everyone you know constantly calls them an ugly slag.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
England (or UK) is where most of us live and have to suffer from the constant barrage of negativity. Its like having the most beautiful perfect partner in the world and everyone you know constantly calls them an ugly slag.
Click to expand...
But if you know these people are lying fuckwits why would you care?
 
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.