Maybe throw in a few retroactively to last season for good measure, like 6 points? What do you think?
City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing begins 16th Sep 2024 | Concluded 9th Dec 2024 - Awaiting outcome
- Thread starter VanGaalEra
- Start date
Maybe throw in a few retroactively to last season for good measure, like 6 points? What do you think?
What are they being asked to "cease and desist"? Simply mentioning the charges or actually flat out saying they are guilty?
Goldbridge has been assuming guilt and speaking the same as the average Caf poster. Often saying things like cheats etc.. Most journalists have the ability to use tact but well Goldbridge is an idiot so of course he's spouting down the pub nonsense.
Word among City fans and I dunno how true it is, is that sentiment in the club is if City are found not guilty of these charges, which the club (not I, don't come at me) are confident of, quite a few journalists are in for far an unpleasant surprise. There is as many as 10 from 5 or so publication listed to be sued for libel.
Because they've never completed or are anywhere close to competing.
"Mark Goldbridge" is a fictional character played by someone.
Of course Brent Di Cesare (the guy who plays Goldbridge) can still get done for libel but he shouldn't be held to the same standards as a journalist. It would be like Steve Coogan being taken to court by the farmers of Norwich for the shit Alan Partridge said.
They are threatening a SLAPP. It's obviously a public interest topic that we're all entitled to engage in discussion over. City, as many pricks who have too much money do, think they can abuse the legal process to chill people's freedom of expression.
Anyone who gets one of the letters should go to the law society website and find the solicitor roll number of the person sending the letter and report them for abuse of process and let them explain to their regulator if they have a claim
I think you should strongly share your club's opinion. Quite a few of us on here do.
Honestly at this point, just announce they have been found not guilty and get on with it. It's clear to everyone what the verdict is going to be.
he said he hadn't got it
The difference between Goldbridge and Coogan, is Goldbridge isn't trying to be a comedian, he's appearing on many football shows and has kinda put himself in that position. Nothing against his hustle, exploiting the biggest fanbase in the world whilst not even supporting their club is quite genius.
I don't know all the ins and outs but the general rule is if you're in a position with an audience like he is you should be careful what you say. To take a common political phrase "Freedom of speech, isn't freedom from consequences"
For what its worth I think he should be allowed say what he likes as should everyone but we don't live in that world anymore.
We don't live in a world where people can comment on things they read in Der Speigel without the threat of a life upending lawsuit by people with unlimited money? Why do you think that is?
Maybe not a comedian but he's trying to be entertaining. Obviously he's not as funny as Coogan but he's absolutely playing up to the camera, in character.
People who approach things with tact can comment on what they like. Take Miguel Delaney who never stops going on about City, but he does it without shouting "cheats" or saying they're guilty. Because he uses his brain and gets his point across without overstepping.
Why do we live in a world like this, fecked if I know. Money, corruption, take your pick, but public figures have never been free to throw statements like Goldbridge makes around.
He's entitled to comment on the reporting from Der Speigel and the outcome of the UEFA investigation and the CAS ruling and the reporting of the 115 charges to form as strong an opinion as he likes.
Its unethical to threaten people with civil action over widely available information. An obvious SLAPP to chill free expression and the solicitors involved should be held accountable by their regulator.
But he wouldn't play up to the camera by starting Partey, Mendy, Greenwood is an r word (simply because it opens himself up to libel. I hate to keep using that example but its the easiest and quickest to come to mind),
Its not hard, if you're in a prominent position don't state stuff that hasn't been proven. He'd be fine to say stuff like 115 charges FC or whatever, when its not fine is when you say "Manchester City are cheats" as opposed to "Manchester City are charged with cheating". Pedantic yes, but that's how it is. Carragher has literally joked about City live on air and because he was careful how he did it isn't open to the same issue.
Has he come out showing proof of the cease and desist?
He's got a wife and kids, that would be a surprise.
Be seriously, he said in a clip posted in this thread he'll show it on his podcast. The grift never ends.
You can't go around saying people are guilty of something that they haven't been proven guilty of, you don't have to like it but it is what it is. Should it be that way? no, but it is.
If I called OJ a murderer whilst he was alive on a huge public platform he wouldn't be long silencing me.
A more apt one is perhaps if I called Lance Armstrong a cheat before it was proven, he wouldn't be long silencing me either. Obviously after proven guilty that changes.
But whether people like it or not and regardless of how, City are guilty of exactly nothing so far. CAS overturned Uefa and the PL is just charges and until that changes stating they are on a public platform is incredibly stupid.
All of this is nothing to do with my own personal beliefs by the way, just the way it is.
The fact he said he's received a cease and desist surely opens him to a counter libel suit if he never received it.
Also for what its worth City say they've sent him nothing. So could be some either deluded fan or someone winding him up.
https://onefootball.com/en/news/sou...ntact-with-youtube-channel-presenter-39450360
https://onefootball.com/en/news/sou...ntact-with-youtube-channel-presenter-39450360
I would call OJ Simpson guilty if I had seen incriminating documents though, in this analogy a photograph of him murdering his wife.
I don't need a court to tell me if I've seen evidence. Which we all have in City's case.
Is that website reliable? It's quoting an unknown source from Man City where you would think in something like a flat denial, nobody would need to hide their identity.
He's said he'll be reading it out today on his podcast. Why he would lie about this is a mystery.
Goldbridge is at his best when he goes off script on weird analogies. He can be funny.
But the channel has become very scripted, self-promotional and agenda driven in recent years.
Fair play to him for calling City out. The cease and desist letter is scary and typical of that club since the state took them over. Obviously this is the sort of legal intimidation that they do with the mainstream broadcasters too.
That stuff with Troyes and Girona and Savio is bananas. Not to mention that Savio will be challenging Grealish (100m) and Doku for the left wing.
They are a huge stain on the game.
It will be sad if they get away with it, and that’s very possible.
But the channel has become very scripted, self-promotional and agenda driven in recent years.
Fair play to him for calling City out. The cease and desist letter is scary and typical of that club since the state took them over. Obviously this is the sort of legal intimidation that they do with the mainstream broadcasters too.
That stuff with Troyes and Girona and Savio is bananas. Not to mention that Savio will be challenging Grealish (100m) and Doku for the left wing.
They are a huge stain on the game.
It will be sad if they get away with it, and that’s very possible.
Again you haven't, you've seen emails that are being used as evidence but nothing proven. I mean we have the Greenwood footage, go on a platform with hundreds of thousands of viewers, presume his guilt and call him what you think he is and see how it works out for you. What you think doesn't matter or have any implication on what you can or cannot say.
Why do you think Keane, Carragher etc... are all treading carefully, do you think they don't think City are guilt? Hardly. everyone and their mother thinks its very, very likely City are guilty but they won't put their foot in it till they are sure.
CAS overturned based on time barring evidence, as you probably know. There was a statute of limitation on the offence so City got off on a technicality. People are entitled to their view about whether that means they cheated or not..
People cannot comment on criminal trials before the verdict as it can lead to influence on the jury, but of course people have an opinion on verdicts and the fairness of trials etc
That's a half truth. Some stuff was time barred, other stuff was just purely quashed by City including the famous Aabar letter. A lot of Uefa's claims were deemed "not established" as in they couldn't be proven (or disproven for that matter).
Again and I'll say it again because no one here seems to listen or start reaching based on the fact I support City. Do I think City are guilty? I do. Do I think if these cease and desist letters should be sent? No. Do those opinions matter in terms of how I see City, the PL approaching things no. Are City allowed to go after a public figure spouting unproven stuff? I don't like it but they are even if they shouldn't be.
It really is that simple, if someone isn't found guilty don't call them the criminal until they are.
I am entitled to speak on publicly available information, so is everyone else. The Sky pundits are being careful because Sky has told them to be to an extent.
The CAS and the Der Spiegel documents are enough.
They're actually not, that's why we have a legal system to establish guilt. You're free to say what you think, but if you're saying someone is cheat who hasn't been proven to be a cheat that's libel whether you like it or not.
I mean if me and you had a disagreement on here and I called you something you aren't guilty of or haven't been proven guilty of, you'd tell me to stop even if you had done the deed. (And vice versa of course).
Saying what they want without it proven is the domain of Alex Jones and Katie Hopkins and they've rightly both been censored too.
The point is just because we know something doesn't mean we're legally allowed to say it, cause it suits our pov.
Stefan Borson just spoke quite poorly of Goldbridge on Talksport over the cease and desist
Who is Stefan Borson?
It's more akin to Johnny Depp and The Sun.
They were found to be entitled to rely on untested evidence from AH to make definitive statements.
We are entitled to rely on reporting from Der Speigel, and the CAS verdict for the facts which form our opinions
A football finance expert they regularly have on, well versed in law/ contracts/ FFP etc
He's a City fan though so he'd obviously take that stance.
Did he say Goldbridge is making up this letter?
Said his sources deny all of it and he thinks it's rubbish but happy to be proven wrong but suspects it's Goldbridge being clickbait
Not necessarily, he could easily say he's heard it's true and agrees with it and that people can't accuse people without fact etc but he has gone the opposite the way and said he thinks it's rubbish.
The Goldbridge stuff is brilliant if true
Sorry I misunderstood, I took it as he called him a clown or something because I believe he's made digs at Goldbridge before.