I understand your point but this has gone on far too long and IF we 'settle" people will always say we are guilty and our image and that of our owner tarnished.You do if it's commercially beneficial. We don't need a so called "clean name". We're not a person walking the street trying to get a job. As long as sponsors and investors know the position then it's advantageous to just get it done, particularly if it stops the PL having the ability to come after us again in the future. We're guilty regardless of what happens. The PL are in real trouble regardless of what happens. Guilty and we've undermined the competition for a decade. Innocent and they'll be accused of corruption. Maybe they don't care about that so much. It's a better position to be in really.
But maybe we can be cleared of all the big ticket items and allow them to fine us for some accounting error that didn't mean much but still is worthy of a punishment to help pay their legal fees and put some money behind the bar for the Christmas do. I don't think that helps that much either, but if a few of the 115 charges stick then people may give them a bit more credit for due process.
I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):
Yes I noted the nation state shit but Jordan was babbling and interrupting that much it was probably difficult to cut in like that idiot does!Well, I put myself through it and a few points:
The first six minutes of that audio clip tell you everything about at which demographic the channel is aimed. I doubt they are interested in the minutiae of complicated legal cases.
I am not a fan of going on Talksport anyway, especially White and Jordan. You are on a hiding to nothing trying to clear up ten erroneous facts every ten seconds. The last time @projectriver was on Jordan seemed to be able to behave reasonably and listen occasionally, not so this time. He had his points to make and would talk over anyone to make them.
On the whole, I thought @projectriver did as well as anyone can in those circumstances.
Oh yes, last point. I thought the rumour was that the PL are trying to settle with the club, not that the club are trying to settle with the PL. An important difference and one that could have been made, imho.
Oh yes, one more. He threw the nation state accusation in in the middle of an interruption. That could have been challenged, though I accept the difficulty in correcting quick fire bullshit.
What makes me laugh is Jordan’s attempts to say we have all this money to throw at our legal representation, as if we shouldn’t be allowed. Why the fuck not? That’s our prerogative to use the best available counsel. Fuck them all.I wouldn't worry about any criticism from within this forum. You're doing a good job if you're invited back, because an alternative expert would probably play to the gallery and throw more dirt at us.
You can't undermine your credibility by being clearly biased. Jordan doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and despite claiming to know a thing or two about litigation still draws wild conclusions - I'm not sure how he thinks the PL can't compete in terms of legal representation. It takes a fair amount of talent and knowledge to become a KC and whilst money can buy you the very best, there are quite a few to pick from and they cost about the same!
For the rival fan, who actually listens to what is being said (probably not many sadly) you do a good job at clearing things up.
Jordan likes to suggest he doesn't have an issue with us as a club. But it's funny how he doesn't accept suggestions he ran Palace into administration. There's more to that story apparently, whilst clearly we're guilty as sin.
There are also a lot of city fans who need to grow a pair when it comes to this case and the semantics.
I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):
Doesn’t matter if we are found innocent now the damage has been done, a bit like the uefa one back in 2014. If we do a deal it must be on our terms with the Premier League issuing a statement saying basically they couldn’t prove shit but rather than waste time and money we have come to an agreement the PL are wankers and City are the best team in the land and all the world :)There can never be irrefutable proof that you haven't given or received a proverbial backhander. I could say that I have proof that I have received one from somebody, if I had. However, I could not possibly prove that you haven't, at some point in the last ten years, slipped me an envelope full of cash.
'Settling' is something you do to make a case go away, and to save yourself a bucket load of time, cash and risk. The unfortunate reality is that guilt is no guarantee of being found guilty and innocence is no guarantee of being found innocent. So, sometimes, it makes sense to agree to disagree, settle, and move on.
What we likely have here is a case and a series of charges that cannot be proven one way or another. However, unlike in a court, the bar for proof in a hearing is a little lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt', and so both sides may wish to concede that a 'settlement' is the best way out for them both, with both believing they have saved face.
Much as we'd like to clear our name completely, I don't think that is possible. Much as they would like to prove our guilt, I don't think that's possible. Even if we were found innocent of all 115 charges (which we won't be, because some of the minor ones are likely stone-wallers), the reality is that the Red Tops, the likes of Jordan, and football fans at large will simply see it as an OJ Simpson or 'Stephen Lawrence five' botched investigation. We are absolutely guilty in their eyes, whatever the verdict. A settlement may reinforce that opinion, but it won't change it. An innocent verdict will never waiver their belief that we are guilty. In that sense, the smear has worked, so we simply must do what we must do to bring this matter to a close as soon as possible.
Then they wouldn’t have Stefan back on, it’s better we have someone trying to articulate and cut through some of the bollocks than have nothing at all.I was listening on the radio, so missed the grimace.
It is very difficult, maybe impossible, as that's what he does for a living and despite his attempts to present himself as not anti City it is just an act he hates us with a passion.
They ask you one question and while you are trying to answer they interject loudly with another.
I suppose the correct response from you would be to match their levels of shit housery but I suspect you're too measured and too decent to do that.
What's required is your knowledge and a proper Manchester 'fuck off' attitude. Liam Borsan? Stefan Gallagher?
But realistically you needed to kick back with either "let me finish" or refute his current interjection as loudly and rudely as he made it.
Jordan dealing in conspiracy theory excuses and playing to the masses. Stefan dealing with the facts of the arbitration process.No issue at all with @projectriver going on talksport. Always speaks well.
Here it is for anyone who's interested
talkSPORT | talkSPORT
talksport.com
Jordan was probably miffed because he'd received a C & D letter and was trying to be bullish to make it look like he didn't care.Well, I put myself through it and a few points:
The first six minutes of that audio clip tell you everything about at which demographic the channel is aimed. I doubt they are interested in the minutiae of complicated legal cases.
I am not a fan of going on Talksport anyway, especially White and Jordan. You are on a hiding to nothing trying to clear up ten erroneous facts every ten seconds. The last time @projectriver was on Jordan seemed to be able to behave reasonably and listen occasionally, not so this time. He had his points to make and would talk over anyone to make them.
On the whole, I thought @projectriver did as well as anyone can in those circumstances.
Oh yes, last point. I thought the rumour was that the PL are trying to settle with the club, not that the club are trying to settle with the PL. An important difference and one that could have been made, imho.
Oh yes, one more. He threw the nation state accusation in in the middle of an interruption. That could have been challenged, though I accept the difficulty in correcting quick fire bullshit.
I've had a quick listen back to the City section. Don't think I'd say anything different. Not really sure what Gorton's issue is - most likely stylistic (tough) or a lack of understanding (try to read more on the topic).
Here is the City section (along with grimace):