Goldbridge is a liar and Stefan went on Talkshite and didn’t call Jordan a **** and was measured and calm.
Now you’ve caught up.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Now you’ve caught up.
ayrshire_blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 6,275
Cba reading 60 pages.
What have I missed?
Goldbridge (no idea why he takes up so much of this thread!!) confirms he has NOT been the recipient of a "cease and desist" notice.
Stefan was on TalkSport and was continually shouted over by Simon Jordan.
No actual further developments whatsoever.
J
J
jasko’s hairy plum
Guest
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):
I never believe a person who is over saturated with moisturizer after baking inside the oven for hours .
No idea mate, but up until recently, I’d do the samep.s. why do i always look at @projectriver and think hes called projectdriver
J
J
jasko’s hairy plum
Guest
you know the rulesDidn't know bird and bird were representing the PL.
I walked past their office last week. Very impressive. I'd have bricked the windows if I'd known.
It’s ’Bird and Bird’ not ‘Bird on Bird’ : )you know the rules
1961_vintage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 15,485
You may be a touch lexdicksick.p.s. why do i always look at @projectriver and think hes called projectdriver
J
J
jasko’s hairy plum
Guest
either way , i don’t mind .Birds of a feather fluck togetherIt’s ’Bird and Bird’ not ‘Bird on Bird’ : )
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 20,331
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.
That is an excellent point. Jordan shifting the narrative and framing future arguments in the event City are cleared - which given the aggressive way he went in on this means he thinks this is the likeliest outcome.
These TS chats by Stefan with White and Jordan have been informative and I think productive from a City perspective.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,176
- Team supported
- City
Thanks SSS for putting the excerpt on here. I have just had chance to listen to it and was struck by the degree of agreement which exists now. The sniping at City for the letters never got off the ground because noone could confrirm they had received one and consequently any attempt to transform Goldbridge into a martyr never stood a chance, especially as Jordan would never listen to him anyway. Any attempt to show City as a global bully picking on "a certain gentleman" never got off the ground. When we moved on to the charges even Jordan was quite reasonable! We have all known for about 18 monthse that City face about 115 of them but now, and this is thanks to Stefan, Jordan at least now seems to understand their nature. He was hardly walking all over Stefan when he talked of fraud and he simply said we were charged NOT guilty. He was more irascible when he talked of resources, representation and state ownership, but our ownership is not open to question and the resources question was soon put to bed. But if people wish to say we only won because of our greater resources or better lawyers there's little anyone can do.
The question seems to have caused ructions but again it's hard to see why. It should be pointed out that "settlement" does not mean "defeat" or even "pinch". As Stefan said City are "commercial people" and for them litigation is expensive, time consuming and very unpredictable. City took a "pinch" in 2018 because it cost less than the potential disruption to our plans. Even at this stage a settlement is preferable to a "trial" IF there is no question of guilt and no sanction at all. In other words no pinch. But as Stefan argued it is probably too late for the PL to avoid a "trial">
So, taken all together, I see no grounds at all on which to criticise Srefan. He was never there to slap a gauntlet into Jordan's face, spit in his eye and slice his head off. There was actually very few grounds for disagreement, and in most cases that was because Jordan's position has "evolved". The easy assumptions of City's guilt appear to be gone. And in some large part at least, thanks to you, Stefan.
The question seems to have caused ructions but again it's hard to see why. It should be pointed out that "settlement" does not mean "defeat" or even "pinch". As Stefan said City are "commercial people" and for them litigation is expensive, time consuming and very unpredictable. City took a "pinch" in 2018 because it cost less than the potential disruption to our plans. Even at this stage a settlement is preferable to a "trial" IF there is no question of guilt and no sanction at all. In other words no pinch. But as Stefan argued it is probably too late for the PL to avoid a "trial">
So, taken all together, I see no grounds at all on which to criticise Srefan. He was never there to slap a gauntlet into Jordan's face, spit in his eye and slice his head off. There was actually very few grounds for disagreement, and in most cases that was because Jordan's position has "evolved". The easy assumptions of City's guilt appear to be gone. And in some large part at least, thanks to you, Stefan.