City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

domalino said:
I have absolutely zero insight but if the PL rules were on genuinely shaky legal ground, I feel that Newcastle would have challenged them when they came in 3 years ago. These rules were very clearly brought in to stop Newcastle, the meeting to vote on them was called almost the same day the takeover got approved.

Reading through, it doesn't sound all that convincing to the layman.

It's worth remembeing City didn't vote in favour of the rules at the time though and the papers said this was because they thought it wasn't legal. So it's not a new theory at the club.

Other than that it's interesting that it's come from Lowton not Ziegler as the latter has had all big scoops for City v PL lately. And the reporter has clearly seen the actual documents and quoted from them.
Click to expand...
Were Newcastle in a similar position to ourselves when ffp was introduced by Uefa. They would have wanted to challenge it, but the time that it would have taken to over turn it would have been detrimental to NUFC especially after waiting 3 years for the EPL to accept the Saudi takeover.
 
Don Howe said:
This should help club's image, sigh. Seems so unnecessary to me. Unless they've got real dirt, which I doubt. Exhausting being a City fan.

Is fair market value a bad thing, really? Or is it not being used fairly?
Click to expand...
Agreed - we don’t have to defend the club on everything, this seems desperate and the line about the club believing that sponsors linked to club owners should be allowed to determine how much they pay doesn’t come across well at all.
 
MarsLlama said:
Yes - but if we didn't have to comply with FMV we could have had much more lucrative deals. So if we can prove that FMV is unlawful we might be entitled to damages. At least I think that's the logic.
Click to expand...
Sorry I hadn't finished the full post yet(must have had the post button highlight when I pressed enter) for the full argument. Edited now. It starts off by pointing to the 2021 rule changes: The Associated Party Transaction rules. In that, there was said to be something around showing competing bids of equal value.
 
Tom Connolly said:
please someone break it down really really simply. this good or bad for us regarding 115
Click to expand...
It won’t have any impact on the 115 case itself but in my (not so expert) opinion I get the impression the club are worried about the outcome of it?
 
Mcfc1.9.8.0 said:
glass half empty. I’m thinking the case of the 115 charges ain’t going well at all and city are trying to sling some mud about the place. If it was going well why would we rock the boat.
Click to expand...
Glass half full. The club genuinely believes it's getting fucked over on account of being from the Middle East to the point that a UAE-based company faces more restrictions for sponsoring City than it would for United. The club wants to fight this independently from the charges.
 
Metalartin said:
This is confusing, City's deals were proven to be within FMV years ago.

Isn't it more likely that they are challenging this:

The competing bids bollocks?
Click to expand...
Tendering for sponsors seems odd, especially when a group of pro-reds will potentially decide which you can have as its fair value in their minds.
Or have I got it wrong
 
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