PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bobbyowenquiff]

Had a response from the BBC. Acknowledging the language was misleading and one sided, plus usual corporate language...

They seem to confirm that the headlines were produced by AI in this statement. Presumably it wasn’t even checked legally. Terrible for a public broadcaster to do this.

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Any indication which wanker wrote it and allowed it to be published?

This is the point - systemic failure right from commissioning, research or lack of, writing, editing, quality control and editorial sign off.
This was no silly article on Jack Grealish but an attack on the whole club, its fans and achievements.
On the whole I kind of get the PR approach on non public engagement but kudos to those who fought for the truth on behalf of the club. I would like an expiation from the club .

 

[TueartsOHK]

Any indication which wanker wrote it and allowed it to be published?

No mate. They wrote:

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward

who the team are at BBC sport fuck knows

 

[JULES]

I bet they are Quail's eggs as well.

osprey eggs are quite creamy

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I personally had a conversation re the Pete the Badge story with a senior Exec at the BBC and even when banged to rights…. He just kept repeating the lie…. Have zero respect for the BBC following that.

There is a cultural problem in the online and social media teams. They are unprofessional and inexperienced. There is a lack of editorial control. There are good people at Salford but they are frozen out. It’s a total shitshow.

 

[CC1]

Reply received about that BBC "article". I'll post in the media thread as well.

Thanks for contacting us about an article on our BBC Sport website, now headlined ‘Manchester City 115 charges explained: What is latest on club's PSR case?’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgrjv9ydv31o).

The initial version of this article featured some errors in language in some of the headings and subheadings, which could have given readers the impression that we were assuming guilt on the part of Manchester City, relating to alleged breaches of Premier League rules.

The article was written as an internet search ‘Question and Answer’, setting out to answer some of the most popular searches off the back of Everton and Nottingham Forest’s breaches of PSR rules. The headings in the article were made up of the most prevalent searches by fans, but we didn’t explain this context in the piece, which then could have given the impression we were assuming guilt. The article itself however, did repeatedly outline City’s defence and denial of all charges.

We have now corrected this language, and added some further context as to where the questions in the piece were taken from.

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward.

This is our response at Stage 1a of the BBC’s complaints process. If you’re dissatisfied with this reply, a follow-up complaint may be considered at Stage 1b. You must submit a follow-up within 20 working days through the BBC Complaints webform. If you do decide to contact us again, please include your case number, and explain why you feel your complaint has not been addressed. We will then review your complaint.

Thanks again and wishing you all the best,

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

At least they listened to you but they should have done more than just correct the article. They should have apologised publicly for the errors and explained why their initial comments were wrong.
You can do no more though. Well done

 

[Cobwebcat]

Great perseverance, well done.

It was clear as day that something had gone badly, badly wrong with that article which is demonstrated in the BBC’s response - completely indefensible even for them.

I’m also not one to bash the City comms team because it’s a tough gig, but they should have been all over this and had it pulled - not corrected - as soon as it was published.

The fact it took a fan to intervene is ridiculous.

They probably didn’t comment on legal advice but I hope someone at City sees this thread and passes the information on to Khaldoon.

They should be aware, if not already, that the fans are sick of this now. I was always happy to win this case and move on but it’s so bad that if/when this case is won I would hope City take the necessary action to ensure media outlets can’t get away with this indefinitely.

Elton John used to sue every untruth printed about him and give the money to charity. The mainstream press lost so much money it wasn’t worth it in the end and they eventually stopped. I’m not saying City should do the same but winning the case isn’t enough, they have to make a point in the same way Sterling did and call the worst of them out for what it is.

We pay for the BBC to give us facts not one idiot’s opinion. They should have the guts to print their name and fire them.

Good on Bluemoon.

 

[CC1]

No mate. They wrote:

We’re sorry for the mistakes made here, and we’d like to thank you for flagging this to us. We’ve shared your disappointment with the team at BBC Sport, which helps to inform our work moving forward

who the team are at BBC sport fuck knows

Exactly - would have been better if they’d shared it with their readers.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Any indication which wanker wrote it and allowed it to be published?

Annabel Tiffin, apparently. ;-)

 

[HarrytheBlue]

The BBC's response to my son - see below.