If anyone that ignorant offers me an opinion of the case, I ask them to explain to me exactly what we're accused of. They never can so I tell them I won't discuss it with people who know nothing about the proceedings. This, by the way, includes lawyers I know who are adamant that City are guilty as charged and should really know better.
Theirs is a view born of ignorance about the case, but I don't actually blame people who aren't inclined to follow everything about City online for assuming that we've done what we're accused of. Remember what a very eminent gentleman said when he referred to matters being "organised and clear". Everything has been presented to the public so that anyone who doesn't do in-depth research would unquestioningly believe that version of events.
The original
Der Spiegel revelations were presented as a smoking gun and not as merely a ground for concern. Yes, they read badly for City, but the coverage both in the German outlet and elsewhere was uniformly hysterical. No one cared to point out that, just because something was discussed in an email, it doesn't mean it happened. Nor did anyone pick up on the fact that comments presented as betraying an intention to break the rules might actually disclose a plan to circumvent them with no breach, as millions of legitimate businesses across the globe do on a daily basis.
This assumption of City being caught bang to rights has underpinned basically all mainstream media coverage since then. I therefore understand non-City fans who don't wish to investigate further assuming that the evidence must bear out a damaging conclusion for the club. What I can't forgive is the attitude of the journalists and press outlets themselves.
There have been two or three top posts on this issue by
@gordondaviesmoustache recently and, like him, I feel astonished that it's impossible to call to mind a serious journalist - not a single fucking one - who's written a piece countenancing that we might not be guilty. Even Martin Samuel, that rare ally of ours, approaches the issue from a perspective of the rules being flawed and aimed at protectionism benefiting a handful of clubs.
Now, we don't know what evidence there is outwith the public domain, and maybe the PL's investigation has yielded a comprehensive and compelling body of evidence that will amply demonstrate City's guilt. But based on what's within the public realm, that would seem highly unlikely, while it seems easy to contemplate how the club could easily have achieved its objectives over the period at hand without breaching the rules that the PL claims we did. For business people like those in the top positions at our club, that really wouldn't be unduly challenging.
I wouldn't have expected the media to go all in and bat for City by any means. I don't expect everyone to like us. Having risen to our position of prominence based on the injection of as cash sum in ten figures, we aren't exactly the poster boys for romance (though it's a sport in which romance, at least at top level, has been dead for decades) and I don't ask for us to be reported as though we are. I did previously expect impartiality in our coverage, though, by which I mean some recognition that the accusations against us might not be true.
As some people on here know, I have for my sins a long and deep connection with Russia. I'm enough of an FOC to have spent time here when
Pravda was still the major daily print news source and before it gained additional editorial freedom in the era of
glasnost. I've also spoken to people who were employed by this august publication in its heyday.
My experience is that they don't generally delude themselves. They'll usually admit that they were propagandists. That puts them a step up from most of City's media enemies, who seem to want not only to peddle a tawdry succession of half-truths and untruths, but also to gaslight us into thinking there's some moral campaign behind what they do. Risibly, it appears that some of the WhatsApp group lay claim to being the heirs of Woodward and Bernstein.
Fuck off, lads and the odd lass. We know full well you're shabby and rancid intellectual prostitutes looking for what best helps to line your pockets and coming down on the side of an odious coterie of American disaster capitalists whose only desire is to ratchet up the value of their investment. I'm far from dewy-eyed about our own stakeholders, but at least I don't lie for a living on their behalf.
And that's what our media detractors do - at best, proclaiming half-truths, but more often outright lies. As I recently said, just look at the mendacity that followed the CAS award, when the Panel found no evidence against City on the main charge. City selected two of the arbitrators, we were told. UEFA's statute of limitations applied when there'd be no limitation issues under PL proceedings. The CAS standard of proof was too high. And UEFA were remiss in failing to appeal the CAS award.
Arrant, fallacious bullshit, all of it. And the fact that all of that spread within the mainstream media like wildfire tells you everything you need to know about those in that field. Regrettably, people will and do believe the untruths and half-truths unless they know better, but I reserve my real disdain for the organ-grinders and not the monkeys.
TL, DR - People who know nothing about the case but spout about City's guilt are cunts, of course. But it's in the media where you'll find the more outrageous and despicable cunts, so don't forget to target hurl the bulk of your contempt their way. After all, however much you generate for them, you can rest assured it's fully merited.
