Would agree but he certainly isn’t stupid, as the article is quite carefully constructed to appear balanced - and the conclusions contained in there are superficially plausible.
He presents three scenarios. The first being that we are found guilty - because we are guilty and that the club will engage in ‘vengeful’ retribution following it. The second scenario is the we are cleared but it’s inevitably qualified on the basis that it could be a just outcome, but by implication may very well not be. And the third scenario, and one he posits as the most likely, is a middle ground and one that crucially involves an admission of guilt on our part.
There is a common theme running through those three scenarios, namely that the club has done something wrong, a view that is underpinned by his description of the emails as ‘compelling’ despite them manifestly not painting the full picture (how could they?) juxtaposed against his derision at the club’s deployment of the word ‘irrefutable’ to describe the evidence we have/had in our possession to rebut these charges, through the prism of a gratuitous and grossly exaggerated reference to the hourly rate of our leading counsel. Along with, of course, the obligatory and misleading reference to the time-barring of the UEFA charges.
And he finishes off the article to remind everyone of the wider geopolitical consequences of a finding of guilt - a worthwhile point but plainly designed to bolster the inference of that gult, given its location at the end of the article.
It’s a carefully constructed, but wholly specious work of sophistry, and whilst conspicuously better written than most of its ilk, is still consciously designed to project the unwavering position that the club must have acted dishonestly.
Maybe it has, it’s perfectly plausible, however unlikely, but it’s the absence of any suggestion at the possibility that the club has not, and what the consequences are that would flow from that (rather than us simply getting away with it) that has marked this wholly dishonest species of article for the last two and a half years.
That's just pretty much the same as the pundits and match commentators constantly bringing up how much our squad cost when we're playing the likes of rags and dippers.What annoys me is that its often stated that City are paying Pannick, whos a KC, either £5K, £7k or £10K per hour depending what you read. However, its never mentioned that the PL have also employed several KC and their hourly rate is never mentioned
Well said John. When even the supposedly honest Conn comes out with the mendacious statement about us selecting two of the CAS panel, you know the Guardian has a clear agenda.It isn’t, for all the reasons GDM so eloquently describes above. It’s a Guardian journalist doing what Guardian journalists always do when writing about City; present an entirely one sided narrative, sneer, reference state ownership, time barring and clever lawyers, and never entertain the possibility that we might not be guilty for a second. That offering of Ronay’s ticks every box……
I am one of those who tries to keep up with this thread, but has to skim through because of lack of time, there is one question I would like to ask of the better educated here.
Take the scenario that City have been found guilty of some or all of the substantive "fraud" and "false accounting" charges, based on the flimsy evidence that we know exists, and the Commission uses the "balance of Probabilities" rule to get over the fact there is no incontrovertible evidence of guilt.
The club will obviously appeal if in this position, but my question is what would the other parties who have been tarnished by the verdict do, or what remedies would be open to them.
In particular I am thinking about the Audit firms involved in the whole saga, to the auditors their independence from their client is sacrosanct - they have now been found guilty of colluding with their clients to falsify records with intent to mislead other parties, I don't think this would go down well with these people, is there anything to stop the audit firms from suing the hell out of the PL ??? - I think not, and for this reason I feel that the Commission will only be able to find the club guilty if they can provide some serious new "smoking gun" evidence, the bar must be set very high.
But there may be factors I am not taking into account
They must be representing the wankers at the PL pro bono...What annoys me is that its often stated that City are paying Pannick, whos a KC, either £5K, £7k or £10K per hour depending what you read. However, its never mentioned that the PL have also employed several KC and their hourly rate is never mentioned
The spineless **** is just trying to hedge his bets as the determination advances towards us.This may all be true, but the tone of the article is a million miles away from all the other articles he has written about the subject, imo. It's interesting to consider why. He certainly hasn't developed any journalistic integrity over the last few weeks.
Maybe it's a sign of progress?
Well said John. When even the supposedly honest Conn comes out with the mendacious statement about us selecting two of the CAS panel, you know the Guardian has a clear agenda.
The spineless **** is just trying to hedge his bets as the determination advances towards us.
He pays lip service to a finding in the club’s favour, but the wording of the article is plainly designed for the reader to conclude that such an outcome would be in spite of the club’s conduct, not because the of it.
Quite. I think we could provide a couple of high-profile examples of that. But you can apply that argument even to Everton, where their results got worse the more they were alleged to have spent.Looks like I am on my own thinking it wasn't a bad article by Ronay (inasmuch as he has any qualification at all for talking about legal and accounting issues, or football issues actually), but he did try to explain the rationale for a sporting advantage. Although, he did say rather strangely that "a few spare millions can make a massive difference on the pitch" which is weird.
I think we could all point to hundreds of millions spent that haven't made any difference at all.
More pertinently it's the value of the squad rather than the cost which is significant. Commentators conflate cost with value. The City squad probably cost a bit less than the rags squad but it's worth a lot more, possibly twice as much. This is actually successful investment. But the commentators imply that this is a bad thing.That's just pretty much the same as the pundits and match commentators constantly bringing up how much our squad cost when we're playing the likes of rags and dippers.