PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

My son, himself a journalist, messaged the BBC yesterday about the headline 'What is the latest on the club's 115 breaches?'. My son made it clear that the headline implies that the club has been found guilty. The BBC changed the headline as a result - along with others he mentioned in a similar vein.
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you fail to report the relevant facts the article becomes impartial which is not what the BBC should be doing. They have a duty to provide reporting balance.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
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.
Click to expand...

IMO the original wording in the article was clearly deliberate, no jounalist at the esteemed BBC can be that stupid.

The club should ask for an explanation and public apology from the BBC and until that happens Roan and Stone should be banned from the Etihad.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
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.
Click to expand...
We're being tried by a kangaroo court being chaired by a member of the main complaining club, Arsenal. Colossal mistake. The Prem is just a commercial business owned by the clubs - it masquerades as a proper judicial authority - it's nothing of the sort. We'll eventually put the Prem on the stand in a proper court of law.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
IMO the original wording in the article was clearly deliberate, no jounalist at the esteemed BBC can be that stupid.

The club should ask for an explanation and public apology from the BBC and until that happens Roan and Stone should be banned from the Etihad.
Click to expand...
No doubt it was deliberate , any subsequent change to the wording now makes little difference , we are guilty in the minds of the general public .
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
What happended to a public funded broadcaster being impartial. Also just because its happened before didn't mean its correct.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
From the CAS award:
View attachment 117996
Click to expand...

City need to be doing proper investigations into why it was our club that this hacker chose. No way it was just a random decision, he'll have been put up to it. Someone needs to check his bank accounts.

Tbh, this could all be stuff that City have done, who knows.
 
Last edited:
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.