PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[blumoonrisen]

Is the "115" becoming the biggest ever PL story ?

That stuff..? Nah mate, not all it's cracked up to be.
Doesn't fix leaking roofs.
What are you doing here anyway..? Get back downstairs.

 

[cheekybids]

I don't have a problem with an article now, following the Forest appeal. A lot of (uninformed) people are asking these sort of questions whenever an FFP decision is made. But the BBC's job is to inform its viewers/ listeners/ readers, and that article does a piss poor job.

It’s always risk & reward…… so what’s the reward for getting it sooo wrong. Again & again.

 

[cheekybids]

I am a sad bastard, but I have also written to Tim Davie, Director General of the BBC.

Good afternoon, today I have lost faith in the BBCs impartiality. Interestingly, there is no person named with the article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o

This article was posted today and either needs editing properly for accuracy or deleting altogether.

First issue is this section...

What do the 115 Man City charges mean?​

Effectively that Manchester City cheated.


In UK law people and organisations are innocent until proven guilty. This section of the article is misleading and inaccurate.


The next concern is this section of the report

When will Man City be punished?​

Man City have not been found guilty so this heading is loaded and biased.

Equally, why isn't there a paragraph that asks the question - will Man City be found guilty or cleared of the charges?

The next issue relates to misinformation regarding the CAS tribunal where Man City were cleared of any financial wrong doing. Yes, some allegations under consideration were time barred, but the CAS tribunal said very clearly in their report that Man City were not guilty of disguised equity funding. Additionally, Man City were fined by the CAS tribunal for non-cooperation - this is a fact. They were not fined 'largely for non-compliance' with the rules and instead they were only fined for non co-operation.

The statements used in this report are loaded and present an inaccurate description of what happened. I wonder if the writer of the article has actually read the CAS report. In the CAS report it says 11 times that there was no evidence of wrong doing by Man City in regard to allegations of financial impropriety.

My next issue relates to the section headed - why is the case taking so long? There is no mention in this section that the Premier League opened the case in 2019, I think the day after UEFA opened the case against Man City. Why is it not asked in article why the Premier League took more or less 4 years to charge Man City?

In the timescale at the end of the report there is no mention as to when the Premier League started their investigation into Man City in 2019. Why is this not mentioned?

My next issue is why is there not a section later on called "Will Man City be cleared?" with some reference to the CAS tribunal finidings as a guide.

I could go into more detail, but I suspect you will not even see this email and pass it on to the complaint handling team.

I think the least that should be done now is for the article to be withdrawn for rigorous editing and fact checking or a new article is written following proper research having been done into the CAS findings.

The BBC have lowered their standards today with poor quality journalism and they have shown a lack of rigour and impartiality. This needs to be put right please. Thanks in advance.

Best Regards

Every time the bbc lies about subjects that people are informed upon they lose the trust of people on important topics, foreign policy, covid or Brexit. There was a time you would use the bbc to check against what you heard or saw in other media. I’m not saying they weren’t lying in other areas but I didn’t know they may be.

 

[cheekybids]

"The financial allegations go back to 2009 and were highlighted in leaked material published by German newspaper Der Spiegel. City have always said these leaked emails were obtained illegally."

I guess the BBC are unaware of Rui Pinto then?

Missed a few important words….

City have always said these leaked emails were OUT OF CONTEXT & obtained illegally."

 

[cheekybids]

I had Cumberland sausages( from Bury Market) with mash and onion gravy.

Such an underestimated meal, home made or in a nice restaurant.

 

[cheekybids]

Is the "115" becoming the biggest ever PL story ?

They’ve made all of the piss cans achievements forgotten. Great work City ;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s always risk & reward…… so what’s the reward for getting it sooo wrong. Again & again.

Maybe. I just think there is a good article in there somewhere if it was written by someone who knew what they are talking about.

Even the "When will City be punished?" question is fair game to be raised as it's a question morons frequently ask. As long as the answer begins, of course, with "City will only be punished if they are found guilty of any of the allegations. The club strenuously denies the allegations and the next step is the independent panel to determine whether the PL can prove their allegations or not. In terms of timing, to be honest, the answer is no-one knows ......."

You can get much much better informed content on here, of course, because there are plenty of people with enough experience in the various areas to know what they are talking about. I doubt that is the case in the sports department of the BBC.

In fact, I would suggest people on here are much better informed than your average Joe on the street. Which is a huge failing of the media, to be honest.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

That BBC article is funny as fuck. You'd have to be completely devoid of any critical thinking if you've written that or if you read it nodding along.

As PT Barnum used to say, there's plenty of mouth breathers out there...

 

[Pappa P]

Division 2 sounds quite appealing after dealing with these gutter rats. Just want to watch football.

 

[KS55]

Double egg and chips.

DOUBLE EGG. Posh bastard.