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

bobbyowenquiff said:
To make these allegations City must have a huge volume of evidence that shows our commercial rivals acting in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Which is why this action isn’t just against the PL itself - it’s effectively against certain other clubs too.

I’m no expert but this APT shite smacks of the “Open Skies” case where American owned airlines complained that certain Gulf airlines were gaining a competitive advantage due to receiving state funding. Despite the fact that some of those same American airlines received state funding themselves. Fucking hypocritical cunts!
 
Last edited:
Cobwebcat said:
2 separate cases and City suing the PL over this issue has been a strong possibility for months. City told the PL they were considering this and obviously followed through with it after taking advice from their lawyers. If I remember correctly rules were introduced shortly after which said the Directors of the clubs that brought it in could not be sued personally.

Most seem to think City will struggle with this but City must think otherwise or they wouldn’t have bothered.
Click to expand...
It all depends on City’s evidence of harm they say they have suffered. Other clubs, commentators etc will not know what that evidence is, but it won’t stop them opening their big fat gobs.
 
A couple of points:

This is a section X tribunal, I think, under PL auspices. Surely, they won't have the last word on an issue of competition law? I imagine the club have a strong case and if the club loses, it will appeal to the "real" courts? I can see this taking a while and getting messy.

I don't think it's a delaying tactic, or a tactic to tie up PL resources. The club has objected to the APT rules since they were introduced. The competitive bid requirement introduced last year was probably the straw that broke the camel's (yes I know) back, especially if the club really has lost revenue. It could be a "fuck around and find out moment", I suppose.

Not sure what the "tyranny of the majority" is about other than to set the scene for completely reorganising the PL governance structure. I have never understood how twenty clubs voting in their own interests can come to decisions that benefit the league as a whole. But not sure what a tribunal can do about it, but an IR probably could.

Let's wait to see how this develops.
 
domalino said:
Right - but those rules came in 3 years ago (Nov 2021) and we did nothing until the 2 parties are in a huge, other, legal battle. I think people arguing the 2 are unrelated are being very naive.
Click to expand...
You may be right, but it may be more than that. Stefan made the point than City were seeking damages and therefore had suffered a loss. Perhaps the PL have blocked a deal and that has brought this about...hopefully we'll know soon.
(**I guess this is going through the Law Courts and not some internal EPL process).
**Reading the Times piece again it looks like a Private Arbitration Hearing !
 
Last edited:
argyle said:
It was leaked by one of the red shirts or spurs, imo.

Unfortunately, City won't. They'll keep quiet and allow the silence to be filled with all sorts of crap from the usual suspects.

Which will damage City's perception in the court of public opinion - and it will be City fans that have to deal with it.
Click to expand...
The most likely source is someone connected to LFC because that is where the Times got the UEFA leaks from. I also think that United have shut down the dirty tricks since Ratcliffe came in and have also appointed Omar Berrada as CEO.
 
domalino said:
Sorry, What is unfair about that?
Click to expand...
We don’t know the detail of United’s Chevrolet deal. But we do know that the guy who brokered it got sacked. That’s bound to set alarm bells ringing. Now it could be that he simply didn’t have the authority to agree to that deal but who’s to say that he didn’t get a big fuck off backhander from the Glazers after signing off on it?
 
I know the two cases are not directly linked,but some on here are worried this is indicating we have a weak case with the original allegations. I ,possibly bluetints showing , don't believe we wouldn't be starting another, albeit separate fight if we aren't convinced we are in a strong position .
It's foolish to pick another fight you might lose,and our owners are anything but foolish.
 
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