PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BrianW]

However, next time your lad plays and they are there (warn your lad in advance you don’t mean it) shout out your lads name and say “you've got to do better than that or you will end up at United”

United? Who are they?
Eggzactly!

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I think you have done a great job on TalkSPORT. Jordan has come full circle on his views. Your calm measured approach is the best strategy.

Agree with that. I think the point about the size of the PL team of barristers landed very well indeed. Very measured, but quietly debunking the popular idea that City has a huge legal team and the PL doesn’t.

 

[Colnago]

Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?

No you don't debate by talking over Simon Jordan. SJ has the luxury of being able to change his mind about things - he has does this in the past on numerous occasions and is unapologetic about it. Stefan on the other hand has to remain balanced and not play to the crowd - that is how a person retains credibility. Stefan mentioned the PL have 8 barristers on their team - 2 KC's and 6 junior barristers. Do we know how many City have on their team? I can't work out if 8 barristers is a sign of confidence or uncertainty by the PL?!

 

[Treggy]

Still we have just won four in a row so my heart bleeds for them.

Imagine that they’re so shit we win a fifth without our best player, now that would be a laugh.

They’re crying inside. You know it. That’s enough. However, next time your lad plays and they are there (warn your lad in advance you don’t mean it) shout out your lads name and say “you've got to do better than that or you will end up at United”

Could'nt that be classed as child cruelty ;-)

 

[slbsn]

No you don't debate by talking over Simon Jordan. SJ has the luxury of being able to change his mind about things - he has does this in the past on numerous occasions and is unapologetic about it. Stefan on the other hand has to remain balanced and not play to the crowd - that is how a person retains credibility. Stefan mentioned the PL have 8 barristers on their team - 2 KC's and 6 junior barristers. Do we know how many City have on their team? I can't work out if 8 barristers is a sign of confidence or uncertainty by the PL?!

Cheers. At least these people - Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris KC, Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick KC, and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall KC and James Mather. Likely City don't need the number of Juniors because of the balance of witness evidence ie many more City witnesses than PL witnesses. All that takes prep.

 

[chris85mcfc]

Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?

You're not on there to debate and argue against/with Jordan, or 'Talksports' opinion.

I'd say you're on there to give your expert 'opinion', based on your level of expertise, and experience of working within the industry.

Jordan also has his opinion, based on nothing but hearsay; but ultimately its two different opinions, one of which is being pushed for the purpose of views, whilst the other is based on legal expertise.

Ultimately, you aren't there to change opinion, but rather to try and bring insights to those that are willing to listen.

Keep up the good work, it's refreshing to hear genuine experts debunk a lot of the noise surrounding the financial and legal side of football.

 

[Blue Maverick]

When we win this I hope City do the countdown clock on the scoreboard like they did at QPR 115 to zero now that would be piss funny as we pick up 5 in a row

 

[bigA]

Just heard two dads at my son’s football laughing about Rodri’s injury and their heart bleeds 115 times for them. Holding my tongue is getting difficult.

Sometimes saying nothing will piss them off more than replying.

To quote a couple of lines from a song called Art School on The Jam's debut album In The City

"And never worry if people laugh at you
The fools only laugh 'cos they envy you"

 

[Big mals fedora]

We all know what the witnesses (all of them, not just Simon Pearce) said at CAS.

What we don't know is what the witnesses have said since.

But what's important to understand is that the club does. These cases are not ambushes, and they are not intended or permitted to be ambushes. If there is evidence showing that Simon Pearce or anyone else was lying at CAS, or might have been lying, by this stage of the proceedings that will not be a surprise to anyone. It will have been part of the PL's case for months if not years.

In other words, CIty will have known what the PL rely on - whether or not it is more emails from Der Spiegel = for months if not years. You go into this kind of hearing with your cards, in terms of the evidence you are relying on, already on the table lying face up. Of course, it may be something else entirely, for instance evidence that may have emerged during the disclosure process, or something else the PL have found (like a whistleblower). Either way, we can say for sure that the PL will have disclosed some time ago the evidence they intend to rely on to discredit MCFC's witnesses, and MCFC know exactly what it is that is being said against them and their witnesses.

So knowing the scale of the task they face, what can we read into the reported offer to settle for a small points deduction? IF - and it's a bit If - there really was an offer to settle for 6 points (or whatever it was) that makes me think three things.

First, IF the reality was that senior MCFC officials did lie at CAS, given that they have now seen the detail of the case against us I would be gobsmacked that the club did not take the deal. That is because the reported offer would have got the club off a particularly nasty hook at relatively modest cost, and would have been covered by a non-disclosure agreement so that the details did not enter the public domain. Such a settlement would plausibly allow the club to say 'we're not guilty but settling this for points we can win back through the season was the sensible thing to do rather than spend half the season with this hanging over us.'

Secondly, why would the PL make such an offer? Again, there are a number of reasons, but to make an offer to settle on the basis of such a lenient sanction (lenient in the context of the allegations) is a pretty clear pointer that someone somewhere along the line has spotted some pretty major weaknesses in the PL's own case. Don't get me wrong - cases with weaknesses can still succeed, and even strong cases can come apart in the courtroom - but experienced advocates can usually spot the winners from a fair distance out.

Likewise, even experienced advocates can get cold feet, but the reported offer struck me as being an attempt by the PL to get something over the line rather than face complete humiliation. I have told myself again and again to try to avoid looking at this through blue-tinted glasses, but each time I look at this I come back to a mental image of the CPS offering Fred and Rose West 6 months each for ABH.

Thirdly, disputes like this can only be resolved in two ways: one, you agree it with the other side, two, you let the panel make the decision. There are a number of reasons why we might not have accepted a settlement offer, the most probable - by far - is that the club thinks it will achieve a better outcome by going to trial. Which means that the club either thinks a non sporting sanction is likely even if City lose on the most serious charges - which I personally don't see happening in a month of Sundays - or they think the chances are that MCFC will be exonerated on everything that might lead to a sporting sanction.

Which is most of it bar the non-co-operation charge in my view.

I stress that the assumption that the PL made us an offer that, if the charges prove to be true, would be seen as ridiculously low is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the above. However if the account of that offer is in its essentials correct, to my mind that demonstrates a highly confident MCFC and a pretty desperate PL.

IF, I repeat, that offer was made.

But why would they offer us a 6 point deduction knowing we would probably turn that down, why wouldn’t they just say £5, £10, £15million fine so that we would more probably accept that??

 

[Bez]

Why would Etihad need Sheikh Mansour to pay the majority of their sponsorship contract when they were turning over billions of USD per annum? Looks like they can afford to pay it themselves which was confirmed at CAS.