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

Exeter Blue I am here said:
Whiff?! It’s like standing outside a sellotape factory next to a sewerage plant in a town where everyone has dysentery.
The Times - as evidenced by Ziegler managing to release a full page exclusive on City’s 115 charges barely 18 seconds after the PL’s original announcement was made - appears to be Masters & Co’s media outlet of choice. Fucking cnuts, all of them
Click to expand...
Is it The Times the Sheikh is trying to buy?
 
Sly Stone at BBC United - Mediacity is now on it.

He’s added nothing new in his report.

Apart from….

The move comes a matter of months before a Premier League disciplinary commission will hear over 100 charges

IMG_1341.jpeg

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City legal action: Champions to face Premier League over financial rules

Manchester City are scheduled to face the Premier League in a legal battle over the organisation’s commercial rules next week.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
You've got to love this club, haven't you? Normally it's outright adoration of the senior men's team, admiration for the senior women's team, the many age groups....... I suspect the (presumably blue haired!) lawyer's team are going to become as well known as Pep and the lads!

It wouldn't appear to directly relate to the 115 charges but it's a powerful statement of intent. What other sphere of business would seek to curtail and curb owner investment in the business and and in the local community. It's a huge point of principle and I wouldn't be surprised if more untoward shit about our cartel friends hits the press soon.

Richard masters they're going to bury you in a y shaped coffin, you quisling.


Cry Pannick and let slip the dogs of law! ;-))
 
Sofiablu said:
Just a thought on the definition of sponsorship. Seemingly these new PL rules mean you must be getting a good return on your sponsorship. However isn’t the idea of sponsoring someone or something a kind of charitable act in which your intention is to give a helping hand to those you choose to sponsor. Almost an altruistic act. It’s always seemed strange to have to justify why you sponsor someone when surely it can be for their good and the consequences of that can reflect back on you.
Click to expand...
Just trying to reconcile the points you make here with the clubs currently sponsored by betting companies...
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Sounds to me like the KCs we hired have advised us the PL may have us bang to rights on the 115 as essentially the PL rules introduced since 2008 have been targeted at us specifically and within them the PL can define things such as 'non cooperation', ' related party' and 'fair value' however they wish.
Our best defence is therefore likely to be attacking those rules and showing them for what they are. If we succeed the 115 will vanish like a puff of smoke. If we don't succeed we are pretty fucked. Fingers crossed, but the legal brains advising us will no doubt be as certain as you can be that we'll win.
Click to expand...
Totally off track. The fair value rules re our sponsors, that we are taking legal action against, has nothing to do with the 115 allegations. Why are you making wild assumptions about what our KCs might have advised about those allegations? Little knowledge on your part & thus your recommendations on our “best defence” is totally wrong.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
The PL leadership has been compromised because of undue influence from LFC, MUFC, Spurs, and Arsenal. Our commercial rivals have colluded to try and destroy City. They been running a smear campaign for ten years. Now they are trying to curtail owner investment which has been allowed in football for more than 100 years but doesn't suit certain clubs any more. This smear campaign has been backed up by a poisonous racist whispering campaign. Some of our rivals have been fed confidential commercial information about City from UEFA and PL officials. This is really just naked corruption. And I, for one, am delighted that City have taken the gloves off.
Click to expand...
You've only gone and nailed it.

When people ask me about this aggressive move from MCFC I'm simply going to direct them to your post.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
He’s terrible. On the positive side, he always seems like he has scant understanding of any issue, so I don’t think it’s necessarily bias as opposed to him being clueless.
Click to expand...
Sam Wallace seems to be a total moron. His story is based on the false premise that we are opposing the original associated party rules when our action is based on the amendment to them made in February. The Telegraph is a laughing stock these days.
 
Ric said:
I’m sceptical about some of the stuff Lawton is claiming in his article tbh. Feels like a heavily biased piece designed to paint us in a bad light.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Feels to me like we might have gone in with multiple defence angles, most of which we know aren’t likely to succeed, and he’s just listed a select few off, and our main challenge will probably be none of the things actually reported.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The PL leadership has been compromised because of undue influence from LFC, MUFC, Spurs, and Arsenal. Our commercial rivals have colluded to try and destroy City. They been running a smear campaign for ten years. Now they are trying to curtail owner investment which has been allowed in football for more than 100 years but doesn't suit certain clubs any more. This smear campaign has been backed up by a poisonous racist whispering campaign. Some of our rivals have been fed confidential commercial information about City from UEFA and PL officials. This is really just naked corruption. And I, for one, am delighted that City have taken the gloves off.
Click to expand...
mic-drop.gif
 
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