I disagree. We needed absolute editorial control over Ferran's interview because this is a case where one of our big arguments has been that the process has been compromised by the opposing party leaking information into the public domain. We therefore need to be absolutely sure that our lawyers are absolutely satisfied with every single word that comes out of MCFC on this topic.
Even one word out of place could allow the opposing party to argue that we've also made information public that compromises to put their case across. Anyone, including a well-paid CEO, could make such a minor slip. Remember, expensive lawyers aren't solely our preserve. UEFA might well go into the CAS prpoceedings a QC on a daily retainer of ten grand, and such people are viciously adept at twisting even the most apparently anodyne of words in a non-controlled interview. Yes, Ferran will have to face questioning from such a person in due course and maybe he'll slip up when he does even though I'm sure he'll be very well coached. But there's no point in taking the risk of handing them bullets now to fire at us later.
So yes, you're right purely from a PR point of view. But you completely ignore the legal imperatives at play, which in these circumstances dictate that we take absolutely no chances in terms of editorial control over Ferran's interview. With respect, you seem to favour deriving the maximum PR benefit at the expense of sound legal strategy and it's not an opinion I can get on board with.