The problem with much of the UK media is they don’t worry about evidence or the balance of probabilities etc…. Our guilt is a given on the basis they don’t like us or the origin of our ownership.
This is basically true, regrettably. At the moment, the assumption is that we'll be guilty, which IMO disregards the absolutely plausible possibility that we could have acted within the scope of the regulations as applicable from time to time and nonetheless have achieved our objectives.
In general, I don't debate this stuff with people who can't tell me what at least one of the issues is that have given rise to some of these so-called charges. But in odd discussions I've had going back several years, I've encountered people who profess not to care whether we're strictly innocent. They think that, if we are, it's because we've exploited loopholes and we in any event breach the spirit of the law. Thus, we morally deserve punishment and they'll regard it as justified if it comes.
Frankly, the spirit of the law along with similar offshoots is a bullshit concept beloved only of legally illiterate clowns, and it counts for nothing in the real world. Argument relying on this risible notion will usually be backed up solely with assertions about us being owned by Abu Dhabi, who funnel money into the club through overvalued sponsorship. They can't cite evidence of that, but none is needed because, of course, everybody knows it's true.
I remember having a conversation a while back that went along exactly these lines. I happened to know that my interlocutor had recently benefitted from a significant tax break, so asserted to him that the spirit of the law dictated that he should stop being a tax-dodging **** and tip up the unpaid cash to the fiscal authorities. After all, it was evident that something was going on that wasn't right. For some reason, he thought I should have evidence before making such wild allegations against him, but he can tar City based exclusively on his own rank prejudice.
Unfortunately, I sense that this guy's view of City is quite widespread not only among other fans but within the game itself. This is the root of narratives concerning sportswashing, empty seats and the like. These paint us as a small club whose owners have a shady motive that can be fulfilled only through sharp practice. This, it's claimed, threatens the fabric of football as we know it and needs to be stopped as a matter of priority.
Whether or not City are successful in the ongoing challenge to the concept of associated parties, it's easy to see how the idea has become embedded that we urgently need to be stopped. Of course, there are direct rivals who are only too eager to saw us off at the knee and are willing to act in the utmost bad faith to achieve that, but they've also managed to create an atmosphere where a majority of PL clubs back measures that certainly push hard at the boundaries of competition law if they don't go beyond that.
I wouldn't estimate how tough this PR battle has been for MCFC. In its reporting of anything to do with our club's ownership and off-field activities, the British sports media is more one-sided than a fight would be between peak Mike Tyson and my works tea lady. And then there's the fact that ongoing investigations of our club have precluded any meaningful comment on the allegations against us apart from a simple denial.
It's to be hoped that the conclusion of the current PL case against the club will remove that barrier and allow us to put across our side of the story from a position of strength as the clear victors in the whole exercise. I tend to stick to my home turf when I post on BM and comment on legal rather than PR matters, but when I see the latter having this kind of effect on the former, it's hard for me not to opine that City need to undertake a major public relations effort at that stage.
And, while it's too late now, I also wonder how things have been allowed to reach this point. Notwithstanding the complexities I referred to in conveying our position to the wider public, could we really not have done better? We've completely failed to get our alternative version of events out there, and as a result have made life easy for our enemies, our detractors and their mendacious press cheerleaders.
More than a decade ago, someone very well connected in Abu Dhabi posted on BM. He once wrote that: "Khaldoon Al-Mubarak ... is ... [very] media savvy (courtesy of him having a a former Burson-Marsteller executive as his right-hand man)". I admire Khaldoon immensely and have tremendous respect for his performance in chairing MCFC's board since 2008, but I wish we'd seen a bit more of his and Pearce's "savvy" with regard to this particular matter.
