PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Barcon]

He better not start with me as I'll kick him right in the ghoulies.

Ghost bollocks?

 

[Patrick keegan kid]

This is basically true, regrettably. At the moment, the assumption is that we'll be guilty, which IMO disregards the absolutely plausible possibility that we could have acted within the scope of the regulations as applicable from time to time and nonetheless have achieved our objectives.

In general, I don't debate this stuff with people who can't tell me what at least one of the issues is that have given rise to some of these so-called charges. But in odd discussions I've had going back several years, I've encountered people who profess not to care whether we're strictly innocent. They think that, if we are, it's because we've exploited loopholes and we in any event breach the spirit of the law. Thus, we morally deserve punishment and they'll regard it as justified if it comes.

Frankly, the spirit of the law along with similar offshoots is a bullshit concept beloved only of legally illiterate clowns, and it counts for nothing in the real world. Argument relying on this risible notion will usually be backed up solely with assertions about us being owned by Abu Dhabi, who funnel money into the club through overvalued sponsorship. They can't cite evidence of that, but none is needed because, of course, everybody knows it's true.

I remember having a conversation a while back that went along exactly these lines. I happened to know that my interlocutor had recently benefitted from a significant tax break, so asserted to him that the spirit of the law dictated that he should stop being a tax-dodging **** and tip up the unpaid cash to the fiscal authorities. After all, it was evident that something was going on that wasn't right. For some reason, he thought I should have evidence before making such wild allegations against him, but he can tar City based exclusively on his own rank prejudice.

Unfortunately, I sense that this guy's view of City is quite widespread not only among other fans but within the game itself. This is the root of narratives concerning sportswashing, empty seats and the like. These paint us as a small club whose owners have a shady motive that can be fulfilled only through sharp practice. This, it's claimed, threatens the fabric of football as we know it and needs to be stopped as a matter of priority.

Whether or not City are successful in the ongoing challenge to the concept of associated parties, it's easy to see how the idea has become embedded that we urgently need to be stopped. Of course, there are direct rivals who are only too eager to saw us off at the knee and are willing to act in the utmost bad faith to achieve that, but they've also managed to create an atmosphere where a majority of PL clubs back measures that certainly push hard at the boundaries of competition law if they don't go beyond that.

I wouldn't estimate how tough this PR battle has been for MCFC. In its reporting of anything to do with our club's ownership and off-field activities, the British sports media is more one-sided than a fight would be between peak Mike Tyson and my works tea lady. And then there's the fact that ongoing investigations of our club have precluded any meaningful comment on the allegations against us apart from a simple denial.

It's to be hoped that the conclusion of the current PL case against the club will remove that barrier and allow us to put across our side of the story from a position of strength as the clear victors in the whole exercise. I tend to stick to my home turf when I post on BM and comment on legal rather than PR matters, but when I see the latter having this kind of effect on the former, it's hard for me not to opine that City need to undertake a major public relations effort at that stage.

And, while it's too late now, I also wonder how things have been allowed to reach this point. Notwithstanding the complexities I referred to in conveying our position to the wider public, could we really not have done better? We've completely failed to get our alternative version of events out there, and as a result have made life easy for our enemies, our detractors and their mendacious press cheerleaders.

More than a decade ago, someone very well connected in Abu Dhabi posted on BM. He once wrote that: "Khaldoon Al-Mubarak ... is ... [very] media savvy (courtesy of him having a a former Burson-Marsteller executive as his right-hand man)". I admire Khaldoon immensely and have tremendous respect for his performance in chairing MCFC's board since 2008, but I wish we'd seen a bit more of his and Pearce's "savvy" with regard to this particular matter.

Great post!
I have a little pub in Leicestershire that is popular with some of the staff and quite a few supporters of LCFC
Tonight after the England game a friend of mine - whose family business has had a big interest in Leicester city - came in for a pint.
(I say this is because he’s always been balanced and educated, and someone who’s opinion I’d trust).
After talking about how shit England were he bought up the Steve Cooper appointment and talked about who else they could’nt have got given the likely points deduction they are facing going into the new season.
I reasoned how ridiculous the PL rules are quoting Villa’s situation.
He immediately took me back and gave me the “people in glass houses” bollocks.
As I tried to explain that city might eventually be fighting Leicester’s corner he left and said he needed to pick up his takeaway.
I suppose it just took me back as to how guilty we are and probably always will be to people I thought had a little bit of football ownership knowledge'!
Oh well… fuck em!

 

[Atypical]

Great post!
I have a little pub in Leicestershire that is popular with some of the staff and quite a few supporters of LCFC
Tonight after the England game a friend of mine - whose family business has had a big interest in Leicester city - came in for a pint.
(I say this is because he’s always been balanced and educated, and someone who’s opinion I’d trust).
After talking about how shit England were he bought up the Steve Cooper appointment and talked about who else they could’nt have got given the likely points deduction they are facing going into the new season.
I reasoned how ridiculous the PL rules are quoting Villa’s situation.
He immediately took me back and gave me the “people in glass houses” bollocks.
As I tried to explain that city might eventually be fighting Leicester’s corner he left and said he needed to pick up his takeaway.
I suppose it just took me back as to how guilty we are and probably always will be to people I thought had a little bit of football ownership knowledge'!
Oh well… fuck em!

Good man I will pop in your pub when I’m next over.

 

[Agueroooooooooooo]

You must have been able to see through him ;-)

So transparent.

 

[wolviedinho]

Aren’t the rags supplying evidence for the premier league in their case against us?

probably. Rags are sneaky like that but above all else only looking out for their own interests. They may agree with us on spending restrictions but still stab us in the back on ffp.

 

[JGL07]

United - hung by their own petard I believe.

I posted an overview of Swiss Rambles analysis of uniteds likely PSR figures shortly after they were knocked out of the CL last year as it seemed almost certain they would fail without CL income. That is of course unless they can secure a large amount of income from somewhere which means either increased sponsorship money or sales of assets. Not sure they have any hotels to sell so i suspected at the time players would go.

They could always buy one and then sell it!

 

[halfcenturyup]

Here is the BBC "special" https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0j5fbrr

• We’re Not Really Here – A Manchester City Podcast
  Understanding City versus The Premier League

Can you clear something up for me? Maguire in his PoF podcast said this "they have raised some intriguing points in the 165 page document which I had to read overnight so, thank you very much to person X who sent it to me from our good friends in the media, ....".

But on the WNRH podcast he didn't mention he has seen it and I think you confirmed he said he hasn't seen the "claim". So he has either had a Goldbridge moment, the document distributed to the clubs wasn't a redacted copy of the claim as Lawton said in his article, or he has decided he said something he shouldn't have said on the PoF podcast?

Not really important, it's just bothering me :)

 

[Keeper!]

Can you clear something up for me? Maguire in his PoF podcast said this "they have raised some intriguing points in the 165 page document which I had to read overnight so, thank you very much to person X who sent it to me from our good friends in the media, ....".

But on the WNRH podcast he didn't mention he has seen it and I think you confirmed he said he hasn't seen the "claim". So he has either had a Goldbridge moment, the document distributed to the clubs wasn't a redacted copy of the claim as Lawton said in his article, or he has decided he said something he shouldn't have said on the PoF podcast?

Not really important, it's just bothering me :)

I think it's common knowledge the document was leaked to The times newspaper and many have speculated it came from Arsenal FC.

The 165 page document was leaked, that's not in any doubt and I would imagine that it's done no favours to the PL at the arbitration court.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think it's common knowledge the document was leaked to The times newspaper and many have speculated it came from Arsenal FC.

The 165 page document was leaked, that's not in any doubt and I would imagine that it's done no favours to the PL at the arbitration court.

Well yes, I am just trying to clear up if Maguire has seen the "document" or the "claim" (if they are two different documents and not the same document redacted as Lawton said in the article). I have no problems if he did, only a problem if he said he did and then later said he didn't. Trust is a big thing when you are listening to "experts".

 

[Keeper!]

Well yes, I am just trying to clear up if Maguire has seen the "document" or the "claim" (if they are two different documents and not the same document redacted as Lawton said in the article). I have no problems if he did, only a problem if he said he did and then later said he didn't. Trust is a big thing when you are listening to "experts".

Expert's keep to facts , analyse those and make a intellectual judgment based on them.

The UK media on the whole has already decided we are guilty.

The only experts you need to worry about are the independent PL panel and Arbitration panels verdicts.

The rest is just noise.