Bald fraud
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 5,611
All makes sense masters not turning up now and they wouldn’t even hand Kyle the trophy he had to pick it up himself from a table. These arseholes want us gone!
I'm actually a bit worried by this news. If it's a basic argument that related parties can dictate sponsorship fees, which aren't subject to market value, it does seems a bit underhand (surely we're past the stage of needing that now). No doubt that there is discrimination due to it coming into play when Newcastle got taken over by the Saudi's but will that hold up in court..I'm not sure.
Who does the market value assessment on the PLs behalf, is it truly independent - I don't know!?
Maybe it's a tactic to overwhelm the PL from the other charges.
Must admit I'm getting a bit sick of all the legalities. I truly hope we win this and the 115 charges case and be done with it all.
Let's put it to bed City.
I'm actually a bit worried by this news. If it's a basic argument that related parties can dictate sponsorship fees, which aren't subject to market value, it does seems a bit underhand (surely we're past the stage of needing that now). No doubt that there is discrimination due to it coming into play when Newcastle got taken over by the Saudi's but will that hold up in court..I'm not sure.
Who does the market value assessment on the PLs behalf, is it truly independent - I don't know!?
Maybe it's a tactic to overwhelm the PL from the other charges.
Must admit I'm getting a bit sick of all the legalities. I truly hope we win this and the 115 charges case and be done with it all.
Let's put it to bed City.
In this last week, I've stumbled upon 3 seperate things that inform me the word goon or gooning now has a very, very different meaning to the kids of today.the fkn goon squad
From the information provided there doesn't appear to be any direct correlation but we've got incredibly limited information about either case so nobody really knows.Am I being thick, or does this seemingly have no bearing on the 115 charges?
None of the charges relate to the rules we're challenging, because those rules weren't even brought in until years after the most recent of the charges.
The article in the Times tries to link the two, and claims that a victory in this hearing could give us a strong defence for the 115 hearing, but I don't see how?
Even if we managed to get these new rules chucked out as unlawful (big if), and even if we could make the argument that some of the rules we're alleged to have broken are unlawful on the same principle (even bigger if), it wouldn't be a valid justification for breaking them after the fact.
Does anyone know if this will be a public hearing or behind closed doors? And in what sort of court/tribunal will the case be heard?
It’s a forum equivalent of rubbernecking.Each to their own and all that, but why do people go on the likes of rawk to then come back on here and complain about what they have read? You aren't going to get a shred of sense over there so why put yourself through it?
Just come through there massive smash on the hill .
City are claiming that the company employed by the Premier League to look at the value of sponsorship deals have discriminated against the deals done with gulf companies.I'm actually a bit worried by this news. If it's a basic argument that related parties can dictate sponsorship fees, which aren't subject to market value, it does seems a bit underhand (surely we're past the stage of needing that now). No doubt that there is discrimination due to it coming into play when Newcastle got taken over by the Saudi's but will that hold up in court..I'm not sure.
Who does the market value assessment on the PLs behalf, is it truly independent - I don't know!?
Maybe it's a tactic to overwhelm the PL from the other charges.
Must admit I'm getting a bit sick of all the legalities. I truly hope we win this and the 115 charges case and be done with it all.
Let's put it to bed City.
I'd be flabbergasted if the Rags are in the trench with us. They couldn't do us a favour when their Ragettes played CFC t'other week! I suspect it's NUFC.It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s United that are the other club voting with us on this latest development
Pistols at dawnDoes anyone know if this will be a public hearing or behind closed doors? And in what sort of court/tribunal will the case be heard?
Not just blocked from any old sponsorship deal either, likely a very big one. Sounds like City have finally had enough of the Premier League arbitrarily blocking our sponsorships with their crooked rules whilst letting Arsenal, Liverpool, and United push through as many deals as they want without question.City must have already been blocked from sponsorship or a renegotiation on some as we're asking for damages as a result of these new rules.