PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I see a number of other journos have started following Magic Hat in the past few days !!

Quelle surprise
 
Last edited:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
It's in Pearce contradiction he had never got involved in arranging monies at CAS.

A subsequent email after CAS suggested otherwise?
Click to expand...
I looked at it again. It's here if anyone else wants to read it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...-City-did-cheat-Premier-League-FFP-rules.html

The email was from Pearce, using his Executive Council email, sorting out an issue with the payment to Etihad from the EC, which hadn't been calculated correctly. We already knew that the EC funded the majority of that sponsorship so that's no revelation. In it, he uses the term "we" to refer to City but says "...I have underpaid you". That was jumped on by Harris, in the MoS piece above, to show that Pearce had lied to CAS when he denied arranging any payments to Etihad.

On one level it does seem to contradict that denial but, as we know, those emails were used incredibly selectively. There could easily be other interpretations of that email, including that Pearce was asked to sort out the problem on misaligned payments on behalf of the EC, or that his denial was based on not being the person who made the sponsorship arrangement on behalf of the EC. Or that "arranged" was interpreted by him as being the person who actually made the transfer. Who knows? In that email he appears to be doing some arithmetic and sorting out with Etihad how they want to correct the mistake.

But at the end of the day, even if Pearce had blatantly lied, it's a complete red herring. It has no bearing on the central charge of equity funding being disguised as sponsorship revenue. The Executive Council provided the additional money to Etihad and whether it was Pearce, Sheikh Mohammed, some other functionary or Uncle Tom fucking Cobbleigh. it makes zero difference to the overall outcome. As I said, total grasping at straws.
 
SWP's back said:
Honestly, I do some “fun coaching” (if coaching is the right word given their ages and that it’s mainly about them all having fun) for ages up to 11 on a Saturday, out of 50 boys and girls, I’d say around 70% wear City tops, after that it’s Chelsea. Very few red shirts around and those that do tend to have fathers that also wear them. But it’s amazing how many kids wear City shirts and their Dad’s are United fans.

Kids tend to want to wear the shirt of, and be associated with the team that’s winning, especially when removed from the immediate locality.

It’ll take a while but the demographics are very much moving in City’s favour.
Click to expand...

There’s a few on here could do with a bit of fun coaching.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I looked at it again. It's here if anyone else wants to read it: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/s...-City-did-cheat-Premier-League-FFP-rules.html

The email was from Pearce, using his Executive Council email, sorting out an issue with the payment to Etihad from the EC, which hadn't been calculated correctly. We already knew that the EC funded the majority of that sponsorship so that's no revelation. In it, he uses the term "we" to refer to City but says "...I have underpaid you". That was jumped on by Harris, in the MoS piece above, to show that Pearce had lied to CAS when he denied arranging any payments to Etihad.

On one level it does seem to contradict that denial but, as we know, those emails were used incredibly selectively. There could easily be other interpretations of that email, including that Pearce was asked to sort out the problem on misaligned payments on behalf of the EC, or that his denial was based on not being the person who made the sponsorship arrangement on behalf of the EC. Or that "arranged" was interpreted by him as being the person who actually made the transfer. Who knows? In that email he appears to be doing some arithmetic and sorting out with Etihad how they want to correct the mistake.

But at the end of the day, even if Pearce had blatantly lied, it's a complete red herring. It has no bearing on the central charge of equity funding being disguised as sponsorship revenue. The Executive Council provided the additional money to Etihad and whether it was Pearce, Sheikh Mohammed, some other functionary or Uncle Tom fucking Cobbleigh. it makes zero difference to the overall outcome. As I said, total grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

A load of Cobbleighs then?
 
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.