Just a line for Stefan. I thought it was like a cat toying with a mouse. I particularly enjoyed your silence whilst Harris spouted his nonsense. I must admit to voicing my disgruntlement when he mentioned we had "Accepted" our breach of FFP in 2014 when I knew this to be untrue. I should, of course, like you did, adhere to Napoleon's epithet that "one should never interrupt one's enemy whilst he is making a mistake". Like you though, one can draw his attention to it once its been made.
He of course made several errors in both his assumptions and cited facts for which you rightly corrected him. The selection of CAS judges, difference between a fine and a penalty, the normalcy of agreements in litigation, the fact City would not accept they breached FFP in 2014 (Subsequently highlighted by your tweet of the actual statement of fact), the size of the penalty. These are all his constant twitter talking points lapped up by the red twitterati. It must be quite disheartening for him to be constantly proved wrong.
He seems obsessed with values of sponsorship contracts for which nobody appears to have hard facts for the values of, let alone the details of those sponsorships. The facts being that no authority has ever indicated that City's sponsorships amounts are in question for either value or their veracity. I suspect he makes an assumption that alleged breaches of FFP in relation to "fraudulent accounts" incorporate this but that a huge leap of faith without any evidence.
So following his hour long chastisement and thorough debunking of most if not all of his "arguments" he retreats to his "safe zone" on twitter and starts hurling baseless insults and quoting nonsense as "evidence", only to be thoroughly undressed in public again. Its easy to see who the victor was when your foe resorts to posting crying emojis like a child with the IQ of a cabbage. It reminded me of the meme regarding one should never play chess with pigeons as all they do after being well beaten is shit and strut all over the board and pretend like they won anyway.
I'm going to have a long look at the post CAS emails from DS regarding SImon Cookes statement and their alleged inconsistency with his CAS testimony. I'm not sure how damning they really are. I cannot remember specifically if that testimony was quoted verbatim or referred to in general in the Case judgement and what, if anything one can take from it. I might come back to you on that.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable podcast - thanks for posting.
