PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Gorton_Tubster said:
I believe engaging with all that shit would be shooting ourselves in the foot. If our owners dare defend themselves they will be drowned out by the massive media hatred. The media have the bigger and louder voice. Facts and truth are the only way.
Click to expand...
I’m not advocating Mansour and Khaldoon being sat next to these clowns arguing the toss. I’m talking about our media and/or legal department reminding these lowlifes that City are in fact, at this very moment, innocent.

The only thing that really matters is that we clear our name but the idea that we have handled this well from an optics standpoint is nonsense. People come on here in their droves to celebrate a decent, fair and balanced article from the likes of Martin Samuel. Unfortunately, you can probably count those on one hand. The club should have made sure that these “friendly” articles were far more plentiful over recent years. If they had, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn’t be in a position where even if we win the case, the fallout wouldn’t be that we bought off a bent panel, or we won on a time-bar technicality. You know…the exact same fallout from CAS.
 
I salute all of you who can still listen to Talkshite. It isn’t broken, it isn’t bothered about being fair. It panders to the dumbed down masses who probably never go anywhere a football stadium. If you’ve been sacked for being caught as a lowlife at a MSM outlet, then Talkshite will offer you a job. The rest of MSM = Unexposed lowlifes, Talkshite = I got caught being a lowlife. I’m sure Huw Edward’s will be reading the news on there by Christmas.
 
OrigamiNinja said:
I’m not advocating Mansour and Khaldoon being sat next to these clowns arguing the toss. I’m talking about our media and/or legal department reminding these lowlifes that City are in fact, at this very moment, innocent.

The only thing that really matters is that we clear our name but the idea that we have handled this well from an optics standpoint is nonsense. People come on here in their droves to celebrate a decent, fair and balanced article from the likes of Martin Samuel. Unfortunately, you can probably count those on one hand. The club should have made sure that these “friendly” articles were far more plentiful over recent years. If they had, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn’t be in a position where even if we win the case, the fallout wouldn’t be that we bought off a bent panel, or we won on a time-bar technicality. You know…the exact same fallout from CAS.
Click to expand...
You know the second letters went out that the media would accuse us or trying to Act like a dictatorship like (UAE)
 
Don't think this is a fair criticism of the club really.

When you are accused of what we are accused of, with all the potential consequences that would follow from a finding that the charges have been proven, you concentrate on defending yourself in that process. Of course you can and should state your belief that you are innocent (assuming you do believe this of course!).

But in terms of the PR battle, the starting point is that we have no realistic legal threat we can make against the "City are guilty" brigade. And they know that. Lots of people have said the club haven't done enough here, but I haven't seen a single realistic suggestion of things the club could have done that would actually have made a difference (I've seen suggestions of things the club could have done, but those things wouldn't have made a material difference to the coverage IMO). Say for example we tried to ban Carragher from the Etihad...that might feel great. But he can still comment on our games. And honestly that would only make things worse. It would just feed the "City are cheats" narrative.

All this is known to the club, who have legal and PR advice of the highest quality on tap. There are reasons that they have acted as they have.

The time for a PR offensive on this is after the result of the hearing, not before.
 
Coatigan said:
You are missing the point.

It is a brief discussion that reaches different levels.

You are one level and Simon has reached you. You only care about innuendo and, in your words, bullshit slinging. There will be plenty like you.

There are a fair few other levels he can't reach. But Stefan can.

The two are targeting a completely different audience.
Click to expand...
You're the one missing the point pal.

The level being addressed on a national radio station was the mass audience that heard SJ slaughter City with his I'll informed nonsense and Stefan not being given time to respond.

Not much point Stefan having all these levels if he's too polite to chip in with counter arguments.

And I resent your pompous tone and patronising attitude. It's possible to care about innuendo and bullshit slinging and still understand the issues.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
You're the one missing the point pal.

The level being addressed on a national radio station was the mass audience that heard SJ slaughter City with his I'll informed nonsense and Stefan not being given time to respond.

Not much point Stefan having all these levels if he's too polite to chip in with counter arguments.

And I resent your pompous tone and patronising attitude. It's possible to care about innuendo and bullshit slinging and still understand the issues.
Click to expand...
He did chip in with counter arguments, you just missed them it seems.
 
blueparrot said:
He did chip in with counter arguments, you just missed them it seems.
Click to expand...
They gave him a short time to answer and then as he was about to deal with SJ's points JW asked him a question about the APT case to further impede him.

Seems like you missed that.
 
M18CTID said:
Jordan back to being a **** again and peddling conspiracy theories about the panel. I’d also like him to explain what the inconsistencies were in the witness statements given to CAS.
How Stefan manages to keep so calm in the face of such confrontational bullshit is beyond me!
Click to expand...
I'm surprised Stefan didn't bite back at the nation state/political pressure comments
 
Braggster said:
Don't think this is a fair criticism of the club really.

When you are accused of what we are accused of, with all the potential consequences that would follow from a finding that the charges have been proven, you concentrate on defending yourself in that process. Of course you can and should state your belief that you are innocent (assuming you do believe this of course!).

But in terms of the PR battle, the starting point is that we have no realistic legal threat we can make against the "City are guilty" brigade. And they know that. Lots of people have said the club haven't done enough here, but I haven't seen a single realistic suggestion of things the club could have done that would actually have made a difference (I've seen suggestions of things the club could have done, but those things wouldn't have made a material difference to the coverage IMO). Say for example we tried to ban Carragher from the Etihad...that might feel great. But he can still comment on our games. And honestly that would only make things worse. It would just feed the "City are cheats" narrative.

All this is known to the club, who have legal and PR advice of the highest quality on tap. There are reasons that they have acted as they have.

The time for a PR offensive on this is after the result of the hearing, not before.
Click to expand...
It’s all well and good saying we will do it after the event but this isn’t our 1st rodeo. We were cleared at CAS and what has the fallout been from it? The clubs PR offensive was to allow all and sundry to run a completely different narrative. We have literally been slandered left, right and centre for the years following and the club have seemingly done nothing to stop it.

Instead it’s left to our “media fans” to go on these shows to defend us but it’s like lambs to the slaughter. That scouser on the Overlap shouts in the City fans face “because you cheated” and not only does nobody in the room pull her up on it, the editors of the show obviously think it’s fine and leave it in the final cut.

If this is all a result of our legal advice…maybe we should be more worried about the outcome of the case?
 
John Wayne said:
Much of that was known beforehand and, frankly, isn't of interest to TS listeners who don't support City. They only care that things are underway and when City are going to 'get done'. Stefan does not get the airtime he both needs and deserves, so in essence all we are left with is Jordan regurgitating the same bollocks.
Click to expand...
Why do you care about what TS listeners who don't support City think?

A lot of it was new to me. And that's with following this thread.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
You're the one missing the point pal.

The level being addressed on a national radio station was the mass audience that heard SJ slaughter City with his I'll informed nonsense and Stefan not being given time to respond.

Not much point Stefan having all these levels if he's too polite to chip in with counter arguments.

And I resent your pompous tone and patronising attitude. It's possible to care about innuendo and bullshit slinging and still understand the issues.
Click to expand...

And take a breath mate!

I get it, it's hugely frustrating to hear SJIAC consistently slag us off and call us guilty.

But remember, it's a tribal sport. People don't need or want facts. Everyone hated the rags when they were successful, hated the dippers, hated Chelsea - the original money men. There's always going to be a reason to hate a rival. Stefan could easily get into an argument with SJIAC and win a few rounds for the City fans, but the wider audience will dismiss his points as bullshit because he's not saying what they want to hear. And he has the benefit of being on air when Stefan isn't and he'd get the knockout blow in then anyway.
 
Coatigan said:
You are missing the point.

It is a brief discussion that reaches different levels.

You are one level and Simon has reached you. You only care about innuendo and, in your words, bullshit slinging. There will be plenty like you.

There are a fair few other levels he can't reach. But Stefan can.

The two are targeting a completely different audience.
Click to expand...
Jordan’s comments have no credibility. Stefan always backs up his comments with facts. It is clear that Jordan is just a classic bluffer. He hasn’t even bothered to read all the CAS evidence. He has virtually no knowledge of City’s case.
 
Colnago said:
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?!
Click to expand...
He made the point about the number of barristers to say that it most probably means that there will be a lot of City witnesses to be cross-examined won't be so many PL witnesses though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top