PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[old blue]

DOUBLE EGG. Posh bastard.

I bet they are Quail's eggs as well.

 

[schfc6]

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

Bull Shit, we’re all ex Chelsea fans from Africa.. We couldn’t find Bury on a map.

 

[Centurions]

So in fact if they were illegally obtained they were infact dismissed from the case as being inaccurate information,perhaps I’m thick or just an idiot

Page 38 & 39

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

 

[Kippaxpete]

That BBC hatchet job is a new fucking low even for them.

Which BBC hatchet job? There's so many!

 

[Kippaxpete]

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

A compelling and articulate rebuttal but a question remains. If the club are challenging this sort of consistently prejudiced narrative, why has it not gone public about its efforts to do so. Too often, as loyal supporters, we're left to field the constant bullshit from opposing fans and mass media while the club remains silent.

 

[bluetonium]

I see the BBC have updated yesterday's scandalously written article.

Now reads: Effectively the charges allege that Manchester City cheated.

I expect they'll still reply to my complaint and say they saw nothing wrong with it and the changes are coincidental.

 

[Chris in London]

I have to say that in its updated form I’ve read a lot worse than the BBC article.

like many others, my conclusion is that it tries to give an impress of balance whilst actually being pretty one-sided. It refers for instance to City spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their innocence without saying that the PL are spending huge sums on lawyers to prove their guilt. It refers to possible consequences for City if they are found guilty without referring to the possible consequences for the PL if they are not. It implies that City is more at risk because they don’t have the CAS safety net without observing that the Panel is likely to be significantly more robust than UEFA in the first place.

My overall impression is that someone at the BBC wanted to put something out showing that they weren’t scared by any cease and desist letter (or to dispel the rumours that they’d had one).

There’s nothing factually wrong in the article, they just cherry picked the bits they wanted to include and the bits they didn’t.

Typical piece of modern BBC click bait in other words. Not well written, biased, lacking in journalistic integrity.

nothing to see here, frankly. Nothing we haven’t seen many times before anyway.

 

[metalblue]

I for one won’t believe “we deserve what we get” as the system is corrupt and designed to keep us great unwashed in our place. If the system had been fair and had a don’t spend what you can’t afford/ live within your means philosophy then i’d have total respect for the rules.

The rules are the rules. Of course none of it was an issue until we turned up and those rules were made up. Yes it’s corrupt and dog wank. But that doesn’t mean we can break them however unfair they may be. If, and it’s a big if, we’ve deliberately circumvented them we can’t complain about being punished.

The PL are in a bit of a hole of their own making. I suspect we will only be found “guilty” of non cooperation in this farce and the punishment will be excessive for that misdemeanour but not too excessive.

Our nuclear option is the super league - and quite frankly which city fan won’t be behind us fucking the PL off if we are harshly punished? Dangle enough prize cash and the rest will follow suit. Even the cunts who pushed for these rules will want to abandon the PL. It will eat itself.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I'm going for Dan Roan's throat.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

The BBC article also changed another paragraph as shown below.

Yesterday it said when WILL Man City be punished and it did not include the explanation that they will only be punished if found guilty.

Disgraceful that BBC QC is so piss poor.

Changed paragraph from BBC:-

When could Man City be punished?

The honest answer is no-one knows and of course they will only be punished if they’re found guilty.