PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Churchlawtonblue]

I stand by that, and the information that we sent them away with a flea in their ear. And as everyone knows, I've always been very dubious about the strength of the allegations.

However, in the light of the other rumours floating around, I did speculate that the approach from the PL (assuming that happened) was possibly more to do with how they unravel this, and seeking assurances from us.

Great, it's in Khaldoon we trust.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

No, you're overthinking it.

You can't win a PR battle in front of a listenership that doesn't want you to win.

But what did happen is that the audience will have listened to that thinking 'this is why City are going to win.'

You can't persuade an audience that doesn't want to be persuaded. It's horses and water.

 

[Bluemoon230989]

Really? In a past life I was a Director and shareholder in a manufacturing business sold for £88 million in 2005. The legal fees for that transaction were around £7 million.

Lend us a tenner.

 

[cibaman]

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.

On point 4, it’s not just a financial issue. If City hadn’t contested the charges the Directors could have found themselves subject to criminal investigations by the Serious Fraud Office and HMRC

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Lend us a tenner.

Fingy

 

[GortonBlue62]

No, you're overthinking it.

You can't win a PR battle in front of a listenership that doesn't want you to win.

But what did happen is that the audience will have listened to that thinking 'this is why City are going to win.'

You can't persuade an audience that doesn't want to be persuaded. It's horses and water.

No, you're overthinking it.

Context is everything.

 

[Ducado]

I stand by that, and the information that we sent them away with a flea in their ear. And as everyone knows, I've always been very dubious about the strength of the allegations.

However, in the light of the other rumours floating around, I did speculate that the approach from the PL (assuming that happened) was possibly more to do with how they unravel this, and seeking assurances from us.

On a business level it makes perfect sense the PL is the sea we swim in, and both parties need to be able to come out of this unscathed as possible, by the looks of it there is being some groundwork done

 

[GortonBlue62]

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.

So why did he come out of it so badly?

I would imagine that preparation is everything in a legal setting.

When you have two gobshite wankers interrupting you every few seconds, we'll that's a different skillset.

 

[jaiguruKun]

We literally cannot win even our lawyers cost too much now and ironically that should also count towards FFP. That's effectively what Jordan was saying.

Clown world.

He keeps me making the point about legal fees/ FFP as though is it is some sort of gotcha.

Even if the legal fees were deducted from the PSR calculation it is not going to be the difference between us passing and failing so what exactly is the point he is making?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No, you're overthinking it.

Context is everything.

Stefan debates in courtrooms; you debate in pubs.

Context is everything.