PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[mattcity5]

But that’s what they are employed as. That’s what pundits exist for isn’t it? Their expertise?
Anyway, I think you’re missing his point.

I probably am, I started reading the discussion halfway through and wasn't bothered enough to read back.

RE the football experts. You'd think they were employed for that, but they aren't. They are just known names and known voices to provide points of view/arguments. Very few provide any sort of expert opinion. Football at the top level these days is too complex for many of the old boys to understand, at least in realtime. Most wouldn't understand the level of Pep's tactics without having worked with him.

 

[chesterbells]

I probably am, I started reading the discussion halfway through and wasn't bothered enough to read back.

RE te football experts. You'd think they were employed for that, but they aren't. They are just known names and known voices provided points of view/arguments. Very few provide any sort of expert opinion. Football at the top level these days is too complex for many if the old boys to understand, at least in realtime. Most wouldn't understand the level of Pep's tactics without having worked with him.

I’m going off topic here, but to your point I don’t entirely disagree. If it were up to me I wouldn’t have any ex-players employed as pundits - they would all be ex-pros who have also been managers for a significant period too - there are exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb they are much better than those who have come straight from a career as a player.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I’m going off topic here, but to your point I don’t entirely disagree. If it were up to me I wouldn’t have any ex-players employed as pundits - they would all be ex-pros who have also been managers for a significant period too - there are exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb they are much better than those who have come straight from a career as a player.

An awful lot of fans would better than ex players.

In fact all these ex players with all their insight and experience add next to nothing with regards to insight, into coaching methods, unifying a group of players, developing individual players. It's just bitching and confrontation.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

But the PL is a members' club, with some members being more influential than others. I don't accept Stefan's view that it's acting with the greatest integrity entirely independently of those members. And those influential members would love to threaten our very existence. The PL CEO was allegedly selected for the role based on his views on our club and how we would deal with us, after others dropped out of the running. Maybe at least some of those dropped out because they didn't like what they were being asked to do.

The PL's expensive lawyers must have raised the possibility that, for example, the Mancini contract charges are immaterial and would most likely be time-barred. Yet the PL still charged us. That snacks of throwing any shit they can at us, however unlikely that is to succeed. What does that tell you?

This was the same situation with UEFA, and Ceferin was caught between the two camps, trying to mediate and offering us a sweetheart deal that we flatly refused. At that time the club expressed its confidence in the outcome and that confidence was justified. The PL charges (as far as we understand them) are far weaker than UEFA's in my view.

Thank you for this. I think you and @slbsn both contribute to this and other threads mightily.
I like the fact that you both have a slight difference in tone as well. I often need a dose of your (well reasoned) optimism to remind myself that the end isn’t necessarily nigh as I sometimes find myself fearing the worst (for no reason other than human nature), but equally, I appreciate Stefan’s more lawyerly reserve too.

Certainly I would rather read your reasons for optimism and also balance that with Stefan’s more dour caution than some of the ridiculous conspiracies that people come out with along with calls to “go nuclear” etc.

And whilst Stefan quite properly offers his services to talksport (where he has done sterling work educating the masses on the substance of the allegations), neither of you have ever tried to use this horror show to advance your own careers/income streams, unlike quite a few blues on social media.

Basically, well done you two, I’m sure I speak for many when I say you have helped a lot of blues navigate this bollocks.

 

[slbsn]

Thank you for this. I think you and @slbsn both contribute to this and other threads mightily.
I like the fact that you both have a slight difference in tone as well. I often need a dose of your (well reasoned) optimism to remind myself that the end isn’t necessarily nigh as I sometimes find myself fearing the worst (for no reason other than human nature), but equally, I appreciate Stefan’s more lawyerly reserve too.

Certainly I would rather read your reasons for optimism and also balance that with Stefan’s more dour caution than some of the ridiculous conspiracies that people come out with along with calls to “go nuclear” etc.

And whilst Stefan quite properly offers his services to talksport (where he has done sterling work educating the masses on the substance of the allegations), neither of you have ever tried to use this horror show to advance your own careers/income streams, unlike quite a few blues on social media.

Basically, well done you two, I’m sure I speak for many when I say you have helped a lot of blues navigate this bollocks.

Thanks.

PS sorry to disappoint but more than happy to advance my career/income streams though (not that 115 in itself has done that)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Thanks.

PS sorry to disappoint but more than happy to advance my career/income streams though (not that 115 in itself has done that)

Personally I'd prefer winning the Euromillions lottery but each to his own.

But if I'm ever invited onto Strictly Come Dancing or Celebrity in the Jungle, I'm happy to decline and pass them your details.

 

[TinFoilHat]

And there’s a guy works down the chip shop, swears he’s Elvis

Was his bike outside?

 

[Saddleworth2]

Thank you for this. I think you and @slbsn both contribute to this and other threads mightily.
I like the fact that you both have a slight difference in tone as well. I often need a dose of your (well reasoned) optimism to remind myself that the end isn’t necessarily nigh as I sometimes find myself fearing the worst (for no reason other than human nature), but equally, I appreciate Stefan’s more lawyerly reserve too.

Certainly I would rather read your reasons for optimism and also balance that with Stefan’s more dour caution than some of the ridiculous conspiracies that people come out with along with calls to “go nuclear” etc.

And whilst Stefan quite properly offers his services to talksport (where he has done sterling work educating the masses on the substance of the allegations), neither of you have ever tried to use this horror show to advance your own careers/income streams, unlike quite a few blues on social media.

Basically, well done you two, I’m sure I speak for many when I say you have helped a lot of blues navigate this bollocks.

Nice post which I'm sure captures the views of many of us.

 

[DJBusinesscake]

The sexual tension between @Prestwich_Blue and @slbsn is refreshing.

 

[happy]

Pundits aren't employed for their expertise, they are paid to have opinions, a well argued, unequivocal fact is like Kryptonite to them and their employers.

Opinions garner engagement and argument, empirical evidence registers little more than a wry smile and a sage nod of the head, neither of which are appealing to advertisers.

 

[Spanishbob]

No news then? No lockdown of this thread. Bugger a another sleepless night .

 

[asahartford1]

Pundits aren't employed for their expertise, they are paid to have opinions, a well argued, unequivocal fact is like Kryptonite to them and their employers.

Opinions garner engagement and argument, empirical evidence registers little more than a wry smile and a sage nod of the head, neither of which are appealing to advertisers.

Marton Keown has done none of that and I have have just switched him off.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I would like to know those reasons, but as it may open an old can of worms I can understand why you wouldn't want to divulge them again.

I don't mind opening cans of worms :)

Remember I am talking about the most serious allegations here. I don't care about the minor ones.

So there are a few main reasons, really. First, the club wants all these matters settled once and for all. Secondly, it was calling the PL's bluff - you really want to do this? A third would be that the club didn't trust the PL to play in good faith.

Imho, the club could quite easily have played ball on third party evidence and provided to the investigation the same sort of evidence they (eventually) provided at CAS. They chose not to, I think, because, firstly, they didn't have to under the rules (no-one ever volunteers information in an investigation) and, secondly, because providing information to an investigation runs the risk, in fact the likelihood if the other party is acting in bad faith, that the information leads to further questions and requirements (once you have conceded to providing information, you can't really refuse to provide additional information).

So the club deliberately didn't provide to the PL investigation the sort of evidence that could have shut down the most serious allegations and that the investigators knew existed because it had already been provided at CAS. Why? Because it forced the PL to either: face a humiliating defeat to their reputation by not referring the club to a disciplinary committee when there were serious investigatory issues still unresolved; or, proceeding in the knowledge that their evidence won't stand up against the weight of counter-evidence the club would provide (as at CAS) and face a humiliating defeat there instead. To shit or get off the can, basically.

The PL chose to shit out 115 unanswered issues from the investigation and here we are with the PL, in my opinion, about to face a humiliating defeat.

Everybody else on the planet thinks you don't enter into a legal process if you don't have to because there is always the chance, no matter how small, of an unfavourable outcome. I think they are underestimating the determination of Mansour and Khaldoon to teach the PL a lesson and their absolute confidence in the counter-evidence they have at their disposal.

Note I didn't say because they didn't do it. I think my analysis still holds even if they did.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Depends what evidence there is in the e mails between certain clubs and the premier league.

Maybe, but that sounds suspiciously like the argument that the leaked emails are definite proof of the club's guilt.

There was still a case for starting the investigation and referring the allegations even if Masters said in an email "we are going to screw the bastards".

Remember the APT case where some guy from Brighton (iirc) said in an email the PL has to stop the Gulf states, but he was allowed to say in the arbitration that, even though he said it, that wasn't what he meant, and all was hunky-dory. Same if Masters actually sent my imaginary email. Same as Pierce saying in an email that Mansour would "arrange" funding for Etihad but then later explaining he was not meaning "arranging" but rather was meaning "arranging".

All imho.

 

[chesterbells]

An awful lot of fans would better than ex players.

In fact all these ex players with all their insight and experience add next to nothing with regards to insight, into coaching methods, unifying a group of players, developing individual players. It's just bitching and confrontation.

Exactly mate. With all those aspects you mention, a decent coach/manager of experience would have more of that insight.

 

[1961_vintage]

Basically, well done you two, I’m sure I speak for many when I say you have helped a lot of blues navigate this bollocks.

115% agree.

 

[chesterbells]

Pundits aren't employed for their expertise, they are paid to have opinions, a well argued, unequivocal fact is like Kryptonite to them and their employers.

Opinions garner engagement and argument, empirical evidence registers little more than a wry smile and a sage nod of the head, neither of which are appealing to advertisers.

If controversial opinions was all it was, Match of the Day would have 3 YouTube big mouth fans on.

 

[BlueFurn]

Was his bike outside?

Not for long…

 

[asahartford1]

I don't mind opening cans of worms :)

Remember I am talking about the most serious allegations here. I don't care about the minor ones.

So there are a few main reasons, really. First, the club wants all these matters settled once and for all. Secondly, it was calling the PL's bluff - you really want to do this? A third would be that the club didn't trust the PL to play in good faith.

Imho, the club could quite easily have played ball on third party evidence and provided to the investigation the same sort of evidence they (eventually) provided at CAS. They chose not to, I think, because, firstly, they didn't have to under the rules (no-one ever volunteers information in an investigation) and, secondly, because providing information to an investigation runs the risk, in fact the likelihood if the other party is acting in bad faith, that the information leads to further questions and requirements (once you have conceded to providing information, you can't really refuse to provide additional information).

So the club deliberately didn't provide to the PL investigation the sort of evidence that could have shut down the most serious allegations and that the investigators knew existed because it had already been provided at CAS. Why? Because it forced the PL to either: face a humiliating defeat to their reputation by not referring the club to a disciplinary committee when there were serious investigatory issues still unresolved; or, proceeding in the knowledge that their evidence won't stand up against the weight of counter-evidence the club would provide (as at CAS) and face a humiliating defeat there instead. To shit or get off the can, basically.

The PL chose to shit out 115 unanswered issues from the investigation and here we are with the PL, in my opinion, about to face a humiliating defeat.

Everybody else on the planet thinks you don't enter into a legal process if you don't have to because there is always the chance, no matter how small, of an unfavourable outcome. I think they are underestimating the determination of Mansour and Khaldoon to teach the PL a lesson and their absolute confidence in the counter-evidence they have at their disposal.

Note I didn't say because they didn't do it. I think my analysis still holds even if they did.

Seems OK to me. If one doesn't trust an organisation (Police, or PL for eg) one wouldn't offer any information freely. Certain clubs and not Masters have instigated the whole thing but Masters will become an easy fall guy(imo).

I am happy not to know the DDate, as I wouldn't be able to sleep the night before.

 

[CatMan]

No news then? No lockdown of this thread. Bugger a another sleepless night .

Does anyone seriously give a toss about this now anyway? Even if some delayed and obscure ruling says we did something wrong possibly 10+ years ago, who gives a feck! At that time half our squad were still in school, half our support were probably supporting another team, the Academy was barely built, 2 ground expansions had not happened, Pep was still at Munich, Cameron was still PM, Covid was still a sample in a Chinese laboratory and our jails and borders were secure! In all seriousness, it will be about as headline grabbing as some of the government shenanigans revealed under the 20 year rule. i.e. not very interesting at all!