PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

GortonBlue62 said:
Irrespective of what Talksport want, he's on there with a golden opportunity to present a positive view of our situation and Simon Jordan, keeps butting in with lies that are easily countered and Stefan is too slow to react and too moderate to fight back.
Click to expand...
I can only suggest that you listen to previous programmes that Stefan has appeared on Talkshite, as he always makes White and Jordan look like Stadler & Waldorf out of the Muppets whilst you come across as Animal.
 
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...
hi chris, i know you're in london, but ooop nooorf we would of replied to the grumpy poster , stop talking bollocks , you've made a right knob head of yourself, now pipe down.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.The use of the word "disagree" is amusing. Used in a similar way to the Brexit debates where they'd get some pub landlord to "disagree" with an economist with expertise in European economics and policy.

I can "disagree" with a nuclear physicist based on a few YouTube videos if I want. It wouldn't make our opinions equal.

Thanks for all your efforts in explaining these matters from an expert point of view Stefan. I very much enjoy your contributions to the 93:20 podcast and I have done for some time.
Click to expand...
Agree. As Asimov put it, "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge..'

Definitely in this instance, Jordan demonstrated the 'ignorance' (both with his lack of content as well as his boorish behaviour), while Stefan demonstrated the 'knowledge' Old Isaac was on about..
 
Last edited:
The thread has just jumped 50 pages since this morning.

What's happened?
 
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...
Agree with this and would point out that 4 is one I explained to him on a previous session!

On 5, I don't know if there was conflation. Perhaps it was SJs attempt. For me, it is simpler - both teams have top teams. The PL has 2x Blackstone KCs - one with 15 years of being QC/KC and one with 12. Plus juniors. Plus Bird & Bird - not my choice of firm but clearly highly competent and expensive.
 
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.