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

[Sky Blue]

If this doesn’t go well, you can bet any punishment from the 115 will be severe. And there I was thinking div 2 would be doable.

Lily livered as usual.

 

[Coatigan]

Agree , the leak surely isn't a good look for the PL either.

Whether they leaked it or not, a third of the article is based on comments by that Plumb guy, so they at the least engaged when approached by the Times.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

We'd definitely get real ale at some of those National League grounds. Makes you think...

Might not be that , how many clubs are now part of the City Football Group these days. 15 or 16. Perhaps we may be in a league with NYC, Mumbai, Girona, Melbourne etc etc. Lol

 

[Lord Blue]

I wonder if this is the premier leagues 115 exit strategy

Ie 115 dropped as unlawful

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

In the words of the famous Megadeth tune “No more Mr nice guy”.

Alice Cooper?

 

[Metal Biker]

Just been arguing on Twitter to the usual suspect and I’ve just come to the realisation that I’m sick of it all. Just fucking boring, isn’t it?

What, arguing on Twitter? Yes it is boring, don't do it.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

The charges are being reviewed by an independent commission. This is going to court between City and the Premier League.

The charges have no relevance to this

It will depend on any incriminating evidence we may or may not have. For example if we have a taped conversation from say Levy calling us "artificially inflating Arab oil money cheats so we need to deal with them" then 115 falls immediately imho
We don't know, so let's hope we're keeping some highly explosive powder in the dry cellar

 

[Blue Feather]

'This is what we've waited for, this is it boys this is war, the Premier league is on the line, as 99 red buffoons go cry'....

 

[El Gringo]

Ive always been all in with City. Now I'm belt, braces and bollocks...ALL IN IN, gone past the stage were I care on the outcome, I'll be here regardless. ...always

 

[xgorton]

No mention on the BBC football site,what's up with the coonts.

 

[bigA]

Why do I get the feeling that the Times has decided to release this biased piece to deflect from Liverpool & Standard Chartered

Yes indeed. It's the old "it's a good time to bury bad news" bit by the red top biased media. Liverpool FC have put their deflector shields on full after today's Standard Chartered revelations and this news has "leaked" out to shift the focus and guilt away from themselves.

 

[Revolver]

No. Unlikely to do so.

It's the one problem I have with City (besides never buying a LB or someone to help Rodri).

We're excellent on the pitch, and with these legal challenges.

However City's PR is woeful.

By being silent and not communicating clearly, they continually allow the club to be battered with misinformation and lies on a daily basis.

Agree about the PR.

Whilst some people on here are confident that City are in the right by June 4 2025 we may be on page 6544 of this thread.

And due to the boards silence the cartels lackeys in the press will be making hay and us supporters will know nothing.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Worth a watch, even though it’s Sly Sports News.

Video.

View attachment 121248

Man City 'launch legal action' against Premier League over financial rules ahead of their own 115-charge hearing

Man City taking legal action against Premier League, The Times reports, over leagues rules regarding valuations of sponsorships; under regulations introduced in 2021 all deals with companies associated with clubs owners must be independently assessed to be of fair market value

www.skysports.com

The sub headline is false though. I thought this case was about new rules brought in by the PL this year not 2021. Our case is about discrimination in the way we are dealt with by the PL. Do SKY mention that anywhere.

 

[mscenterh750]

Alice Cooper?

Pretty certain Megadeth covered it too and was in a film. I can hear Dave Mustang singing it as I’m writing this reply.

 

[ArniArason]

No mention on the BBC football site,what's up with the coonts.

They only like running negative stories about us

 

[chedinho]

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.

I thought the same.
I think it’s more about being hindered at every turn and losing money because of it.

 

[MillisleBlue]

Take aim at the big dog? You’d better not miss.

CTIFD

 

[give it to gordon]

Anyone think the dippers have leaked this to try and get the news away from their gun running bank sponsor ?

 

[eyalluvitt]

The more I think about it and what @The Stockport Iniesta said the more I think it's the rags supporting us in this case. If we were to win this case and prove that the Associated Party Transaction rules are complete wank, the multi-club ownership model would flourish and we'd be able to move players between the CFG for whatever fees we want.

Sir Jim has already stolen a number of our executives and has shown a desire to get into the multi-club ownership business. Would definitely make sense that him and the rags side with us to get rid of APT rules.

​

That would be Nice

 

[Bald fraud]

The more I think about it and what @The Stockport Iniesta said the more I think it's the rags supporting us in this case. If we were to win this case and prove that the Associated Party Transaction rules are complete wank, the multi-club ownership model would flourish and we'd be able to move players between the CFG for whatever fees we want.

Sir Jim has already stolen a number of our executives and has shown a desire to get into the multi-club ownership business. Would definitely make sense that him and the rags side with us to get rid of APT rules.

​

More likely they’d fuck us over then copy everything we’ve built