PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Keeper!]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

Outstanding post and perfectly on point.

Our club should have responded to the media long ago, they should be lauded for what they have done for English football, England and Manchester.

They have raised the bar incredibly high in how professional football clubs should be run.

 

[Shads]

If they had that evidence, the Premier League would have already produced it.

I don't believe they are trying to catch us in a lie, produce a smoking gun at arbitration.

It's gone this far because we simply know everything you have brilliantly explained, we know the law better than they seemingly do and the bar is extremely high.

We've taken the smears, but I genuinely believe the Club and our executives have gamed the whole battle process out and accepted that downside to win the entire war.

The Premier League ran out of road and here we are.

That’s exactly how I see it. They may have even back channeled with the PL to ensure that every conceivable allegation that could ever be made is included so that when we prevail there is no way we can be seen as being “guilty” of anything. For me it’s the only sensible reason as to why the charges already covered and cleared by CAS are included again.
It’s almost as if the top echelon realized how badly the perception of CAS if not the result was dealt with by the press and other clubs fans and want to end it for good.

 

[Shads]

Yes, this seems to be the position. But surely the fact that we cooperated after the High Court ruling on the matter would be relevant in terms of deciding the punishment? Even the CAS agreed that we deserved a fairly heavy fine for not cooperating in those proceedings, but the circumstances then were quite different.

Then, we expressly declined to cooperate, telling UEFA we didn't trust their process, and waited until we went before an independent tribunal before producing relevant evidence. Here, we told the PL that we didn't think they were entitled to ask for what they had, no doubt on legal advice. It turned out that the High Court agreed with them and not us. If we cooperated in full once we had clarification of what we were legally entitled to ask for, then it would seem to mitigate City's position significantly, wouldn't it?

I also note, and believe, TH's comment to the effect that we've provided the PL with a welter of material. In MCFC's own statement, the club made reference to the "vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with". The point in this regard that I (like others) find hard to square in my own mind is why, in this event, the PL has charged us.

We've already run through the theoretical possibilities (either they have convincing evidence we're not aware of or they've given in when pressured by the redshirts to follow this course). To those, Stefan added another - that we're incorrect in our analysis with regard to the standard of proof.

If we speculate on the point that they did so having folded in the face of pressure, then I think a further issue worth raising here is the role of the media. Back in a previous lifetime, I worked for six years in the UK central government, and I've seen how ostensibly sensible and professional people can sometimes act in ways that seem to run completely counter to those qualities with a view to avoiding public criticism.

With regard to the Der Spiegel emails, I don't dispute that they showed City in a wholly negative light and were extremely damaging. Comments and discussions were committed to email that never should have been (to say nothing of the questions the episode raised with regard to our IT security, but that's a separate issue). However, Der Spiegel's presentation of the hacked documents was IMO highly selective and sensational, resulting it it being misleading to a layman reader. Intentionally so, I suspect.

The British press's resultant coverage was, however, utterly hysterical. I understand that this was a big story and it quite clearly raised serious questions for the club to answer. I have no problem with it being reported as such. But the rush to condemn the club - and the general attendant glee at having the opportunity to do so - went far, far beyond any notion of fair and impartial reporting. The only mainstream media figure with any sympathy for us was Martin Samuel, and even he assumed from the off that we were guilty.

People label this kind of thinking as paranoid, but there are journalists out there who've admitted to pushing in their reporting a line of argument that's aimed at discrediting City. Miguel Delaney and Nick Harris have both been quite open on social media about having done (and continuing to do) so, while The Guardian seems very clearly to me to have an anti-City editorial stance.

In this context, it matters little why they do this. The fact is that it sets an agenda and the rest of the football press pack follows. These people have minimal knowledge or expertise when it comes to the off-field aspects of the game, so when the prevailing narrative is set, they follow. That's what's happened with City, IMO. A few have stirred the pot and succeeded in creating a febrile environment in which MCFC are acknowledged as cheats so punishment is expected.

My contention is that, in a context where the PL has faced considerable pressure from within on the part of the redshirts to act against City, there's been considerable pressure from without, too. We'll gain an idea of what the truth is in due course, I suppose, but for now I don't find it inconceivable that the media attitude could have influenced the PL to a certain, contributory degree (I'm not saying it could be the main factor).

After all, I think that few people when taking a decision with ramifications that interest many people want to find that decision widely and publicly lambasted. And a decision on the part of the PL to decline to charge City would have been met with vituperative condemnation from the usual suspects and, most likely, from far wider quarters than that.

The other fact not dealt with here is the the PL regulation arm which has filed these charges has a short term half-life due to the white paper, making the ultimate impact of losing at the panel all but moot.

 

[Bez]

Don

I genuinely believe that it is very difficult for the PL to make a case for failing to cooperate prior to the final Court hearing. It is entirely appropriate within English Law to have a Discovery dispute tested in Court prior to providing the information requested. It is not therefore a failure to cooperate if we following the final court ruling supplied everything we thought was appropriate or relevant to those requests. The ONLY way thereafter we can be found to have failed to cooperate is if we either provide further extensive documents relevant to those requests to the panel which were not supplied to the PL. Alternatively evidence is provided to show that documents that clearly exist and were relevant have been deliberately withheld.
I know others disagree with me here about this but I do not think a failure to cooperate is anything like as straightforward for the PL to find.

I think you make a good point here. I am not a lawyer, but now believe that our position regarding non cooperation allegations may be stronger than I thought initially.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I disagree. But then Stefan disagrees with me.

Well, I disagree with both of you, so I must be right :)

And around and around we go .... I will leave it to you lawyers.

 

[Shads]

Well, I disagree with both of you, so I must be right :)

And around and around we go .... I will leave it to you lawyers.

How can you disagree with us both? Stefan thinks we will be found to have failed to cooperate and I think we will successfully defend that charge. What position are you taking that is neither of those?

 

[projectriver]

How can you disagree with us both? Stefan thinks we will be found to have failed to cooperate and I think we will successfully defend that charge. What position are you taking that is neither of those?

I never said I think we will be found to have failed to cooperate. We don't have the information on that at all re the PL. I think you may be confusing with my view that it is not the more serious charge.

 

[Shads]

I never said I think we will be found to have failed to cooperate. We don't have the information on that at all re the PL. I think you may be confusing with my view that it is not the more serious charge.

Could be… I’ve been busy and just trying to catch up on here.

 

[halfcenturyup]

How can you disagree with us both? Stefan thinks we will be found to have failed to cooperate and I think we will successfully defend that charge. What position are you taking that is neither of those?

:) It was a joke. At least, I thought it was.

No fucking sense of humour, these lawyers .....

 

[Shads]

I never said I think we will be found to have failed to cooperate. We don't have the information on that at all re the PL. I think you may be confusing with my view that it is not the more serious charge.

I just looked back. Your view was that my view on the non cooperation charges was “wishful thinking”. I took That to mean that you felt we will likely be found to have failed to cooperate. Sorry if I misconstrued.