PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Which court of public opinion is that?
I rather suspect that the ownership look at bit wider than ‘what do Dippers, Rags and Arses think’, when worrying about city, and the rest of the world just don’t seem to be at all preoccupied with 115…
For example, the 25 most watched teams in the USA, taking account of streaming, PPV etc, for 2023.

1. Club América
2- Manchester City
3- Chivas
4- Tigres
5- Liverpool
6- Arsenal
7 - Real Madrid
8 - Chelsea
9 - Newcastle United
10 - Cruz Azul
11 - Pumas
12 - Monterrey
13 - Tottenham Hotspur
14 - Manchester United
15 - León
16 - Everton
17 - Atlas
18 - West Ham
19 - Nottingham Forest
20 - Aston Villa
21 - Pachuca
22 - Atlético de San Luis
23 - Toluca
24 - Bournemouth
25 - Barcelona
Click to expand...
Where’s that from, can you share a link?

United 17th oh dear. And Bournemouth above Barcelona?!?
Where’s Wrexham?
Where’s inter Messi Miami?
 
Chris in London said:
This is why you are wrong.

1. The majority of the discussion related to Jordan's view that City have more resources to throw at its legal team than the PL. That is a longhand way of saying City will win because they have the better lawyers.

2. That discussion is in itself a very long way from previous discussions, to the effect that City are/must be guilty. It is, in effect, Jordan setting himself up for the later argument that City only won because they had the best lawyers. Not even that City had a case to answer, nothing about what was said at CAS, nothing. That is definitely much more than a step in the right direction.

Do you see what I mean? The discussion has stopped being 'why City are guilty', it has started being 'why City are going to win.'

That's a huge PR win in itself.

3. There is always going to be an element, I'd imagine a pretty large element, of football's fan base that will regard us as being guilty whatever the outcome. Look at what happened at CAS, and how a resounding victory got twisted into 'they only won because the charges were all time-barred.' If you are expecting this section of the footballing world to adopt a fair and reasonable view of City and this case, you are waiting for hell to freeze over.

4. Jordan did make one excellent point, which is that City's case is not just about accounting breaches in a single year, it is about widescale allegations of fraud of the most serious nature, being aimed against some players with very very high reputations. Of course they are not going to skimp on legal fees when it comes to defending themselves. If nothing else, think of the cost to the club if they were relegated even to the Championship and neither had PL TV rights nor (down the line) Champions league income to rely on. The potential financial consequence could quite easily run into hundreds of millions of pounds. In what world are they going to NOT going to take on board the highest quality representation?

5. The reason I make this point is that during the discussion on TS, two issues got conflated: (a) whether it was 'fair' that City are able to throw more money at lawyers than the PL - as to which see 4 above - and (b) whether the outcome, assuming it goes City's way, reflects that and nothing more. These are two separate points which need to be seen separately. As to the first, as I've said, the whole club's reputation is on the line. Anyone bringing such serious charges against City should really have considered what response the club was likely to adopt if they did. It can't be said it was in any way unforeseeable that we would send in the heavyweights. As to the second, that's just uneducated rubbish. If the case is strong enough, the best most expensive team will not get you out of trouble, nor can the best most expensive team win a case that is doomed to fail. You spend what City have spent to ensure that there are no stones unturned, so ensure that you are able to consider all the possible arguments, and conduct proper reviews of all the evidence, which in a case like this will be mountainous. What City's team will have done is explain the very serious legal hurdles the PL need to overcome, and assess the evidence on which the PL intend to rely with a view to advising what the likely outcome is. If the PL have not done the same, more fool them for taking on a task without a proper appreciation of what is really involved.

If the PL have brought a knife to a gunfight, that's on them.
Click to expand...
Great post. My gut feeling is that over the last few months we have seen backpedalling from our enemies in the media and the narrative is moving towards "Why City will win." The PL board is in a fight for survival and want to position themselves so they can claim: "We did our best to bring City to heel but we just couldn't compete with them economically. " It also seems clear that some of the very toxic private media briefings against City have been curtailed. These sort of costly legal battles very rarely go the whole distance, many civil actions are settled in courtroom corridors at the last moment. There is just too much at stake for both sides and pragmatism usually wins.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
FFS Jordan wiped the floor with Stefan.

Stefan is too slow to think and react in a real time environment.

I hope he doesn't go on again to 'defend' us because let's be honest he's no match for that fast talking **** Jordan.
Click to expand...
Because Stefan thinks about his response before he speaks? Nothing wrong with that. But it's difficult when in dialogue with a shouting, ignorant gobshite who interrupts every ten seconds.
And White chipping in with more bollocks to let us know he's still in the room.
Fuck 'em both, a pair of clickbaiting arseholes.
 
Bluemoon230989 said:
Because Stefan thinks about his response before he speaks? Nothing wrong with that. But it's difficult when in dialogue with a shouting, ignorant gobshite who interrupts every ten seconds.
And White chipping in with more bollocks to let us know he's still in the room.
Fuck 'em both, a pair of clickbaiting arseholes.
Click to expand...
Is about right.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
In a previous post I acknowledged the difficulties he faced and suggested he be a bit more assertive.

It's not rude of a guest to insist on finishing an answer before addressing Jordan's lattest interruption.
Click to expand...
The guy is a lawyer who has made a (highly successful) career of being able to articulate arguments and process highly complex issues in real time in a legal setting when millions of pounds are at stake.

Talking to Jim fucking White on talksport is not a difficult joust in comparison.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
You're overthinking it.

Most people will have come away with the impression that SJ 'won'.

Now that is because most regular listeners to Talksport are as thick as pigshit but that's the arena we are discussing, with its 3.3 million listeners.

You're points are relevant and correct in a grown up discussion between reasonable people. That's not the case here.
Click to expand...
Talk sport doesn’t have 3 .3 mill listeners, that’s its weekly reach,and as I understand it not 3.3 million separate people. Numbers listening to a mid afternoon mid week show will be a fraction of that number. What impression they get has little to do with whatever real discussion takes place.
 
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.