Media thread 2022/23

[Donmcfc]

Comments about her intelligence (or lack of) are fine, we haven’t said differently as far as I’m aware? Stuff about her private life, or just calling her a “stupid fucking woman” etc, is what we don’t want on here.

What if you add "allegedly"?

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Personally never felt it so toxic as it is now. Been called just about everything you could imagine for basically daring to be a city fan this week and refuse to toe the line about city being obviously guilty. It's absolutely wild. People really need to give their heads a wobble.

Reading through some of the commentary on social media, YouTube etc it’s like some sort of gathering place for total morons. Some comments are fucking unbelievable. Like an IQ test in reverse.
(I thought you did great on TV by the way so if you’re getting extra stick I’d take it as a compliment !)

 

[deano ou812]

Don't normally watch FF but as I put the telly on it was on, I just caught the last bit of our segment.

I thought it was Sam Lee and looking at the other two feared the worst but, he actually seemed to have a balanced argument and certainly shut the other 3 up.

To be fair we are quick to jump on him when he writes or tweets something,but he’s been fair here and give both points of the argument,which makes a change ..

 

[petrusha]

Great post as ever Peter but I've a couple of observations.

'Fraud' surely implies that a person or group of people took a conscious decision to hide something from the accounts that should not have been hidden. My ex-bosses conspired to hide large claims at the insurance company they were directors of. That inflated profits and gave a completely false view of the company's liabilities. They went to jail for a total of 14 years.

If City senior execs knowingly did something similar, you can't possibly condone that and they would deserve punishment if so. However, my view at the moment, based on what I know from the UEFA/CAS case, is that many decisions were taken (including deciding to withhold cooperation) after careful legal & financial advice.

The law and financial decisions are always based on opinion around stated laws or standards, so an opinion may not be regarded as correct or right when examined in court. But I'm assuming we took advice on everything we did regarding Mancini's contract and image rights. I assume that Mancini was told that he had to perform the duties outlined in the Al Jazira contract.

The point is that being given and acting on well-meant advice, which was backed by legislation or precedent, is not fraud. Of someone says "That's not legal but they'll never find it" then that's a completely different matter of course.

And a question about limitations occurred to me when writing my KOTK article yesterday that maybe you or another lawyer can answer. The Limitations Act specifies a standard 6-year period for claims. I believe this doesn't apply where criminal acts are involved. But I'm presuming that the PL Commission won't be in a position to state whether there is any criminal element or not. So how can they justify going back to 2009/10? Is it enough for them to say they think there may be a possibility of a criminal act having potentially been committed?

I'm about to go out but will deal with this quickly.

The accusation the CAS regarded as one of dishonest concealment, concerned the Etihad sponsorship and in particular presenting a number of injections of equity funds by Mansour as sponsorship . There was no question in the proceedings of City having done what was alleged, but in good faith following the advice of reputable lawyers or accountants. The defence was that we didn't do it. Full stop.

The CAS agreed with us, but had we been guilty, IMO that conduct by our directors would have corresponded to the body of the offence of false accounting. It would have been dishonest (sophisticated businesspeople like them know the rules for stuff like this) and it would have been with a view to gain (allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award). It would have occurred through our using various sets of accounts the directors knew to be "misleading, false or deceptive" given that those sets of accounts would've collectively misrepresented the true nature of £200 million of equity funding.
I would suggest that the PL over the last few years, pushed by our rivals, has been desperately seeking evidence in its investigation to enable it to have another go on the Etihad sponsorship point. It would seem crazy for the PL to charge us on this issue if there's no more evidence than went before the CAS. Either, then, the Etihad matter doesn't underpin any of the PL charges or, as I suspect given that our rivals' client journos continue to insinuate that the Etihad deal is dodgy, they've found something which they think makes it worth another crack. We'll see.

With regard to matters where we would have followed the advice of reputable professionals, I think you're right that this would be unlikely to constitute false accounting or another dishonesty-based offence. If we thought we were doing things that were perfectly proper in legal and accounting terms, the element of dishonesty would be absent.

As for the limitation point, what will be relevant is section 32 of the 1980 Act, which allows for the limitation period to be postponed in case of fraud, concealment or mistake. I suspect that the PL would be looking to section 32(1)(b), and claiming that the limitation period should be extended because we concealed matters on which a claim would have been based. Thus the limitation period would run from when the PL became aware of the matter in question. Mancini's consultancy contract with Al-Jazira might be an example where they'd argue this.

Here's a news item on the website of the international law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, which deals with a case where a claimant failed to persuade a court to extend the limitation period on this ground. You'll see that, in reaching its decision, the court pointed to two factors that have been cited in case law as particularly important criteria when considering this issue.

The following is a direct quotation from the Norton Rose Fulbright piece:

The court drew out two (closely related) points from the established case law on s.32(1)(b) LA 1980 important to the case:

1. Claimants must meet the “statement of claim” test, which requires the facts which have been concealed to be those which are essential for a claimant to prove in order to establish a prima facie case. The test is not met if the relevant fact merely makes a claimant’s case stronger.
2. There is a need to distinguish between concealed evidence which merely supports an allegation essential to the cause of action, on the one hand, and concealed facts without which the claim is incomplete, on the other.

I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but my first instinct reading the above is that we might struggle with regard to something like Mancini's contract.

I hope this is useful, but if you need more, let me know by PM and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, must dash.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Time to put a permanent end to this thread.

I said exactly the same after UEFA banned us and the media threw ‘GUILTY!’ at us three years ago, and I’m saying it again (I’ve actually been saying it for well over a decade!)…

We should fucking not be giving a platform for free advertising for these sycophantic cunts to have their articles given exposure and clicks.

I have no idea how or why you all do it to yourselves. All you’re doing is winding yourselves up and by giving them the platform and exposure, you’re partly giving them the drive to keep doing it.

Bring a City fan is a much nicer experience when you pay fucking no attention whatsoever to the media.

Don’t buy Sky packages, don’t buy BT, stop paying your TV Licence, stop listening to the phone-ins and to talkSPORT, stop watching SSN, don’t buy/suscribe/read newspapers… none of them deserve our money!

Aha
Woah oh
We’re gonna get along without you now.

 

[argyle]

Personally never felt it so toxic as it is now. Been called just about everything you could imagine for basically daring to be a city fan this week and refuse to tow the line about city being obviously guilty. It's absolutely wild. People really need to give their heads a wobble.

It will be even worse if/when City are found innocent of the main charges.

 

[argyle]

Not that I've read them but there has been article after article and pundit after pundit saying what will happen if City are found guilty.

Has there been anything/anyone wondering what happens if we are found innocent? What happens to the PL, will there be criticism of the other teams for pushing this investigation?

 

[petrusha]

I didn't find your post dull but I do need to comment on one point where you state:

When talking about filing accounts, the correct term is true and fair and there is reference to that in the EPL announcement of charges.

The distinction between fair and accurate is very important and I am not going to get into a long discussion of that as it will bore but - odd as it may seem to laymen - there is no requirement under law to file totally accurate accounts. In fact, it's almost fucking impossible with any sizeable business.

Fair does though mean that accounts should be materially correct - and materiality varies depending on circumstances.

Fair also means that transactions have been reported appropriately and that is where trouble might arise for City, as I guess the EPL are going to try and argue that transactions not in City's books, and which legally were not required to be, should have been reported - at least in some way - to the EPL.

Good luck with proving such a thing (obviously I don't actually wish the EPL anything but the worst of fortune). I very much doubt that all the various auditors involved have not done sufficient work to ensure that their clients' account were not true and fair under the relevant laws of the land.

The EPL look like they may be wishing to redefine the meaning of true and fair and other accepted accounting terms such as related party.

I hope that City's lawyers can ultimately put them in their place on that score. If not, then it could indeed lead to very serious punishment but I have to beleive that right will prevail and City will win: as I have send many time, in maby ways, this is a fight against protectionism of a particularly awful (red and green) hue.

Thanks for this. I'm aware of the point, but this is what one gets when rushing as I was when writing this morning and you're right to point it out. 'True and accurate' is something I'm used to writing in other contexts. The PL certainly does seem to be trying to change widely accepted accounting rules in an idiosyncratic way to protect the narrow self-interests of a grasping and entitled minority of its member clubs. I too hope that City prevail and think our doing so would serve the interests of justice.

Excellent as always, Peter, if somewhat sombre in tone. Glad you made the "bullish" reference towards the end. Your contributions, along with those of Stefan and PB, are much appreciated. Let's hope we the team shows up on Sunday. We all need a lift.

Funnily enough, I woke up this morning intending to write a different post altogether - one along the lines of why I still back the powers that be at MCFC (even though I wish they'd show some meaningful sign of appreciating what it seems fashionable now to call the legacy fans!). However, I just thought that it would be a bit dangerous if the idea takes hold that we don't have too much to worry about. IMO, we need to be aware at all times of what they're trying to do to us.

I suppose that the more sobering post followed whenever I find the time by one that might set out a few more grounds for optimism is the right way round to address it, though, so I guess it's for the best.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Personally never felt it so toxic as it is now. Been called just about everything you could imagine for basically daring to be a city fan this week and refuse to toe the line about city being obviously guilty. It's absolutely wild. People really need to give their heads a wobble.

Exactly the reason why Pep coming out firing yesterday was needed, as others have alluded to, not every City fan is in their twenty’s fighting fit with a gob like Lilly savage, no doubt this was a welcome remedy for a good few, even kids in the school yard are getting it

 

[Franny 1234]

We have our 3year old grandson over weekend and your posts (along with others) stop me going insane having peppa pig on loop. Lol
It's appreciated CTID