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

[The Stockport Iniesta]

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.

Samwallace is the Swahili word for nonce.

 

[Coatigan]

Telegraph Article (no coments allowed):

https://archive.ph/AxMRI

Sam Walace eh.
Can't even get the facts right.

Fuck__ ing___ hell!

 

[johnny crossan]

Not the bone factory that used to be in Hyde, I had to go past that place on the bus occasionally as a kid, fuck me, what a whiff.

Smith Bros Animal Products - the Kingston Stink. Appalling beyond imagination.

 

[hertsblue]

From BBC sport:-View attachment 121264

More proof for us not co-operating with the amount of leaks

 

[spider blue]

Dead since 2002

How unfortunate, would have done a great job for us.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

The Associated bit is in my view the nub. An extended Middle Eastern ruling family will have multiple people ‘associated’ with the head of the State in positions of authority and power.
The PL change to move to ‘associated’ created a subtle (and overtly racist in my view) blunt instrument tor the PL to use against us. It’s no wonder we abstained from the vote on its introduction and have taken action.

It’s also no wonder that the PL Chairman chose as part of the ‘associated’ Regs to insert the clause to give themselves immunity from personal prosecution on decisions on sponsorship etc. They knew at the time of the introduction that this would probably come back to bite arses.

Take a look at the attached article from the Athletic (2022) which I remember posting a while back. It shows examples of how ‘associations’ could be used punitively against us. E.g PL decide that ‘they can’t sponsor you coz your daughter / brother/ first cousin is on the Board,’

Special report: Manchester City's sponsors, the links to Abu Dhabi and what it means for Newcastle United

Many of City's sponsors have links to people who run the club, their families or others in Abu Dhabi

www.nytimes.com

 

[eastmanc]

Unfortunately everyone will think we are guilty whatever happens now. The damage has already been done.

The damage was done years ago. I for one am glad we are pushing back finally.

 

[Ric]

Telegraph Article (no coments allowed):

https://archive.ph/AxMRI

Sam Walace eh.
Can't even get the facts right.

City really needed to make an official statement, or at least brief their side to a friendly journalist, to counteract some of the nonsense like this that we’re going to see in the coming days.

 

[There is a Light]

I've been on the front line all evening fiercely defending the club and attacking our opponents. Racked up more than 50 comments on the daily mail so far.
Everyone has to play their part in this battle.

Bring it on

 

[Legal Alien]

i have been having fun on twitter with this argument

If our sponsorship deals have been inflated, then haven't they done well out of them. They have sponsored a team that has won the treble, achieved 100 points, won 4 PL TITLES in a row and done the domestic treble, signed marketable superstars and are a global brand. For sponsors that is a win win scenario. They get to associate themselves with success.

Other teams sponsors will have put lots of money into sponsorship deals and seen the team they have sponsored finish mid table with a leaky roof, a crap manager whilst being millions in debt. These sponsors associate themselves with mediocrity and decay.

I said this the other day, the initial Etihad sponsorship deal was for 10 years and while i agree it was inflated and over valued at the beginning when looked at it in yearly isolation, once we won the league in 2012 with the best PL ending ever seen, which was broadcast all over the world, everyone knew our name and our success on and off the pitch took off.
Consequently at the end of the 10 years the deal was so under valued it wasn't even funny.

The thing that i find amazing is that no one in the media has even bothered to recognise that the value for money our sponsors and owner have had over the last 14 years has been staggering and unmatched by any other club in England.
Long may it continue!

I'm all for us going after them all. Let them have it CITY!!!!

 

[Shazza458]

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! ;-))

You can see why Masters didn’t go to the Etihad on the final day

 

[jimharri]

Dead since 2002

Minor detail!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Questions need to be asked how that document was leaked. It can't do us any harm at all that "confidential documents" about the case have been shown to the press.

Information designed to damage City has been leaked continuously through both the UEFA case and now the PL case. The latest leak is a confidental document outlining the details of City's action against the PL. I can't recall a single leak of anything damaging about UEFA or the PL coming from our side.
The first question any proper journalist should ask is: "Why are they leaking this information" No one in the media has been prepared to ask that question. But any right-thinking person with an ounce of intelligence can see what has been happening. The CAS judges described the UEFA leaks as "worrisome." It remains to be seen how the independent lawyers considering both our cases with the PL will now react. But I believe it will not do our case any harm.

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

Sam Wallace wouldn’t be out of place at the Liverpool Echo.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Here we go! I get the feeling that this is the start of our counter attack and there will be more to come. The PL will not know what's hit them.

Let’s hope Doku is playing.

 

[Shaggy]

 

[Sibierskii]

Dominos had their windows done in yet?

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Well, I know one thing. Inflatable bananas will always be waved at matches. But the laughing stock days are a thing of the distant past.

 

[Toranaga sama]

From The Times article today....

"They (City) also say that the Premier League, as an organisation, is a direct competitor for sponsorship and therefore claim they have a conflict of interest."

I also didn't understand what it meant by "a direct competitor for sponsorship".

 

[Claytop]

Must be due a Mullock/Lee/Blackburn briefing soon?…