MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Media discussion - 2024/25
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
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.
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,406
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
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.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.
1961_vintage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 15,344
Very good BBC FF today. Stones' interview, Nedum and Shay Given offering opinion/insights and balanced coverage for our Men's and Women's teams. Refreshingly normal.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,113
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.
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.
Very good BBC FF today. Stones' interview, Nedum and Shay Given offering opinion/insights and balanced coverage for our Men's and Women's teams. Refreshingly normal.
Blueboy73
Well-Known Member
Didn't he "apologise" and the ban lifted?Hence my link in the post - AFAIK, he's still banned!
citymad
Well-Known Member
After just one game ? The IQ entry requirements for a journalist is at an all time low. Can’t believe we let the imbeciles like Stone throw questions at Pep.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,703
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.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.
But if you know these people are lying fuckwits why would you care?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.