PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Facts are things like :
we've taken the 115 charges off the books because it isn't a risk now.
Or that we've spent £400m instead of preparing for potential relegation.

You can either believe those facts. Or believe what Jordan (a person who dislikes or club ownership, works for a shock-jock radio station, someone who is very jealous of what city owners have achieved compared with him) when he says 'someone told me the opposite'. No proof, no names, no facts. Just the opposite what he was told.

I have no idea if we are going to be innocent or guilty but out of those two arguments which one would you bet on the outcome? I'm amazed that quite a few would go for "Jordan has contacts in the business" so has knowledge.
 
Listening to Jordan, I seemed to be implying he has heard something but the sanctions won't be as severe as people have suggested i.e 60-100 points etc.
Let's just say in a parallel universe he has heard something (my opinion is the same as stefan) but let's say he has. With the most serious charges, the ones will likely sporting sanctions if found guilty, is there an area where the sponsor contracts are deemed not a sham but they whey they were financed or reported for example could be deemed not in good faith because it was evident there was some accounting wizardry going on. Therefore the sanctions not as severe.
My opinion is still we will be cleared of serious charges, I'm just asking is there grey areas or is black or white, before I get piled on.
 
Does anyone seriously believe that Simon Jordan has more of an inside track on how confident or not City are feeling than every City fan, especially those ITKs? Come on ffs! If there was any semblance of truth in what he said then it would've leaked out through other channels long before Jordan got hold of it and he'd be pretty much the last person to hear about it, not the first.
 
slbsn said:
I agree with all of that. Plus the key witnesses (Mancini and the Al Jazira CEO (an established sports exec)) are either not giving evidence or have publicly endorsed that the arrangement was genuine.
Click to expand...
As far as I can remember the last time Mancini commented on this he said that there had been no contacted in relation to this matter from either the Premier League or there legal team..... but anticipating the usual question from some on here I would struggle to provide a source (but google is your friend :-) )
 
M18CTID said:
Does anyone seriously believe that Simon Jordan has more of an inside track on how confident or not City are feeling than every City fan, especially those ITKs? Come on ffs! If there was any semblance of truth in what he said then it would've gotten out through other channels long before Jordan got hold of it.
Click to expand...
Imagine, like you say, if Jordan actually did know the outcome. Imagine being him, he is already a know it all **** and if he had this nugget of info he would NEVER be able to keep it quiet. The guy is a orange faced rag loving fraud.
Talkshite suits his profile. He is a failed businessman now getting paid to spout utter bollocks to appease the masses of dippers and rags that tune in.
 
Did he actually say he had heard anything ? I thought he started off at least by saying he did not think we are confident and dismissing the investment in the new stand etc
 
M18CTID said:
Does anyone seriously believe that Simon Jordan has more of an inside track on how confident or not City are feeling than every City fan, especially those ITKs? Come on ffs! If there was any semblance of truth in what he said then it would've gotten out through other channels long before Jordan got hold of it.
Click to expand...

I suspect he's putting forward his own opinion of how confident City ought to be based on what he's heard about the hearing based on the views of someone on the other side. But even if that's wrong, it's generated a ludicrous amount of discussion on this thread.

As @halfcenturyup said, there's a lot of high-quality analysis in this thread that you wont' find replicated elsewhere. At the same time, though, there's also a welter of absolute shite on here.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
First off, the PL would have to prove it was a sham. It didn't have to be Mancini personally delivering the consultancy so even if they had evidence he never spoke to anyone at Al Jazira, that's not in itself proof. It could have been David Platt, Lombardo or anyone else who was suitably qualified, even if they had no connection with City.

Second, great play was made of the supposed fact that we paid him more via Al Jazira (£1.75m pa) than via City (£1.45m). But this was a misleading comparison as his City contract was heavily incentivised, so by winning the FA Cup and getting top 4, he received far more than that base £1.45m

Finally, if the PL allege it was fraudulent and designed to hide expenses from the accounts, we'd simply point to the scale of our losses at that time (which totalled around £350m in the years that Mancini was manager) and ask why we'd want to hide less than £6m. If it was the difference between profit and loss, or passing or failing FFP, then there might be a case but the amounts involved are completely immaterial compared to the level of losses we were reporting.

It's a complete red herring and the PL bringing it into the charges seems to reinforce the view that they're throwing any little thing at us, however irrelevant it is. It's the optics of the charges that are more damaging than the actuality.

We can probably take comfort from the fact that if they thought they had us bang to rights on the potentially far more serious and material sponsorship issues, they wouldn't need to bother with the Mancini stuff.

My guess is that there was some tax advantage for Mancini in this arrangement and that many foreign managers in England have some sort of similar arrangement. There was certainly no advantage to us.
Click to expand...
Also surely for it to be a shame it would have to be related party ? A none related party wouldn’t set up a sham contract for us. It’s not a related party. So harder to prove ? Maybe more problems tho ? Not declaring related party ?
 
To me, Simon Jordan is habitually disingenuous(in the same show, he gave a 'reminder' to Stefan that City were bought by a nation state, he is smart enough to know the difference) and argues in bad faith a heck of a lot, which IS dishonest but flat out lying and making things up, is a bit different.

I didn't watch the whole thing but in the clip I saw, he didn't say he had heard it, he says he doesn't believe City are confident. Unless he's said it elsewhere or off air, then that is a common tactic Simon uses in debates: "I only said that's what I believe", it's his escape route.

In fact, didn't he use exactly that, when Stefan pointed out he was sure the PL would offer a deal and that City would accept it?

It's because it's Simon Jordan, people get the impression he wants to convey he's heard something. If it were anyone else, people might give the benefit of the doubt, that he's not deliberately trying to give off that impression.

He's just very manipulative and uses logical fallacies a lot(yes I've learned a new term, one that sums up the anti-city media in general, not just Simon). His favourite is the 'burden of proof fallacy'... "I think City have a case to answer". Which is not him saying he's seen evidence that we have not. He's doing the "X is true, you show me proof I'm wrong or what I say has to be true[which isn't logically accurate]" tactic.

Here's a fun game, see how many logical fallacies you think you've encountered in this saga from the press and from the rival fans: https://thinkingispower.com/logical-fallacies/

Edit: There's an actual game suggested in the comments too, webpage version:
 
Last edited:
petrusha said:
I suspect he's putting forward his own opinion of how confident City ought to be based on what he's heard about the hearing based on the views of someone on the other side. But even if that's wrong, it's generated a ludicrous amount of discussion on this thread.

As @halfcenturyup said, there's a lot of high-quality analysis in this thread that you wont' find replicated elsewhere. At the same time, though, there's also a welter of absolute shite on here.
Click to expand...
The thread is bipolar.
 
petrusha said:
I suspect he's putting forward his own opinion of how confident City ought to be based on what he's heard about the hearing based on the views of someone on the other side. But even if that's wrong, it's generated a ludicrous amount of discussion on this thread.

As @halfcenturyup said, there's a lot of high-quality analysis in this thread that you wont' find replicated elsewhere. At the same time, though, there's also a welter of absolute shite on here.
Click to expand...
and by creating that debate and discussion he has served his secondary purpose in life, his primary purpose keeping fake tanning shops and dog groomers in business.
 
Metalartin said:
To me, Simon Jordan is habitually disingenuous(in the same show, he gave a 'reminder' to Stefan that City were bought by a nation state, he is smart enough to know the difference) and argues in bad faith a heck of a lot, which IS dishonest but flat out lying and making things up is a bit different.

I didn't watch the whole thing but in the clip I saw, he didn't say he had heard it, he says he doesn't believe City are confident. Unless he's said it elsewhere or off air, then that is a common tactic Simon uses in debates: "I only said that's what I believe", it's his escape route.

In fact, didn't he use exactly that when Stefan pointed out he was sure the PL would offer a deal and City would accept it?

It's because it's Simon Jordan people get the impression he wants to convey he's heard something. If it were anyone else, people might give the benefit of the doubt that that he's not deliberately trying to give off that impression.
Click to expand...
SJ is a fraud. An actor. A know nothing, failed football club owner who survives by having smoke blown up his arse by the genuine idiot JW. I don't know why City fans listen to it, we are not their target audience.
 
slbsn said:
I agree with all of that. Plus the key witnesses (Mancini and the Al Jazira CEO (an established sports exec)) are either not giving evidence or have publicly endorsed that the arrangement was genuine.
Click to expand...
The arrangement’s purpose was to preserve Mancini’s pay off from Inter which would be reduced if he was paid by a UEFA club within a stated time scale.
 
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