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

[East Level 2]

Do you genuinely think the Billionaire Sir Jim Ratcliffe will be putting his own money into the rags?

Come on, he is not that stupid!!

Well the tax dodging twunt doesn't put his money into the NHS, public services or the UK armed services does he?

 

[give it to gordon]

Am I right that this will be heard under UK law and not the micky mouse laws/rules of the pl ?

 

[eastmanc]

Simon Jones is going to have an aneurysm live on TalkSPORT. Tune in from 10am.

The fast bowler?

 

[BlueAnorak]

Did the PL actually consider what would happen if they accused City of fraud?
Masters was probably given no choice by the US owners, but if you're going to drop the legal bomb you'd better be damned sure of your evidence and hearsay isn't evidence.
City took a pinch from UEFA but now the gloves are off.
This is the first response by City in a war not of their making.
Any attempt to shackle City that isn't fair or apply equally to all clubs will now go straight to the legal cudgel

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Prem teams furious as Liverpool and United vet league CEO candidates

Liverpool and Manchester United have left their Premier League rivals furious after reportedly having had special access to weigh up the candidates to be new chief executive of the Premier League.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This was an article for the CEO who turned it down after their access. I wonder if we have a statement from her.

If she could corroborate what we are thinking this would be damning.
I'm hesitant as to the existence of any smoking gun but we'll soon know

 

[Keeper!]

Agree I wouldn't be surprised if utd are with us on this. Doesn't ineos sponsor his French club ?

Yes and it's only right that he's allowed to.

The only issue I have with this action is the multiclub side of it and the "fair market value" for signing players from those clubs.

I personally don't like having a an owner owning a number of clubs, it's wrong and could well cause issues in the coming years.

 

[manimanc]

It sure looks like we are going all in now, huge couple of weeks coming up for our future and the league's future.

Lose this case and we look proper *ucked

Put it this way, we aren't going into this blind mate, we obviously have evidence coming out of our ears to pursue this.

So chuffed we've finally said enough is enough and have decided to fight back.

This will have all been planned to the minutest detail, I really think if we got the ammo to shoot masters and the Premier League down in flames then this 115 charges gets put to bed.

Loving the media throwing haymakers at us and nothing landing.

 

[Keeper!]

Well the tax dodging twunt doesn't put his money into the NHS, public services or the UK armed services does he?

Why should he?

Would you in his position?

 

[Keeper!]

Not really, there's nothing for City to lose here. The rules are in place so nothing would change unless we win.

We lose the first case and we are in trouble in my opinion.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Am I right that this will be heard under UK law and not the micky mouse laws/rules of the pl ?

All under PL rules.

 

[Centurions]

115 is a section W action under a disciplinary panel.

City's claim is a section X arbitration action.

All under the PL rules but different rules, a little more like CAS.

I bow to your professional knowledge in this and it's perhaps because I've had to skip most of the thread, but are you saying that it's not being heard by a proper court room with a real judge or judges? I'm still talking about City's claim that was launched in Feb and leaked yesterday?

 

[Bluepetal]

I have. 80,000 words. I've disguised every person I wrote about. 500 quid to self-publish. I'm a bit anxious about doing it. A few close friends have read it, and the feedback is very strong. It is funny, tbf. It is a question of having the confidence to publish it. I signed many NDAs over my career. I'm 90% going to publish.

I’d buy it . Let me know when you reach 100%.

 

[halfcenturyup]

We lose the first case and we are in trouble in my opinion.

This is nothing to do with the 115 allegations. There is no link whatsoever, imho....

What connection do you see?

 

[Ric]

Still a bit surprised that it’s not Newcastle challenging this, tbh. Or at least a joint challenge from both clubs, given that the rules are very clearly targeted at us both.

 

[nmc]

Was she the one who accepted the job and then backtracked blaming undue influence from 'certain clubs'? It might have been one of the other 2 or 3 who turned it down though.

I think one started and then back tracked and two turned it down after being vetted by the Red Shirts. One cited too much internal interference as a reason for walking away.

 

[Keeper!]

Put it this way, we aren't going into this blind mate, we obviously have evidence coming out of our ears to pursue this.

So chuffed we've finally said enough is enough and have decided to fight back.

This will have all been planned to the minutest detail, I really think if we got the ammo to shoot masters and the Premier League down in flames then this 115 charges gets put to bed.

Loving the media throwing haymakers at us and nothing landing.

WE are taking legal advice, two ways of looking at it.

Restriction of trade which we should have fought from day one or our 115 case is looking iffy.

I sincerely hope it's the former and I believe we will win because we live in a capitalist system and to sop investment is against everything that stands for.

 

[Ric]

We lose the first case and we are in trouble in my opinion.

With respect, that’s nonsense.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It only makes the club look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole if you accept the way this is being painted in an article using cherry-picked phrases from a huge (and presumably very complicated) legal document, chosen by someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand the legal issues at stake, and supported by quotes from an unnamed source presumably being the same guy as the one who gave the document to the journalist in the first place. The whole article was written by a guy who couldn't pick up on the legal nuances, only the issues that a football journalist would recognise.

Have a little more confidence in the people who own the club. They deserve that, at least, and I have no doubt they know what they are doing and why.

Spot-on. The confidential document forms part of our case. It has been leaked to the media a week before the hearing by someone acting in bad faith. It can only have come from the PL or one of our rival clubs. The media have been complicit in this smear campaign since day one. Our club has to fight back against this corruption. Let’s call it out for what it is.

 

[Keeper!]

Still a bit surprised that it’s not Newcastle challenging this, tbh. Or at least a joint challenge from both clubs, given that the rules are very clearly targeted at us both.

Sitting on the fence, if we were to lose this our reputation is utterly destroyed.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

My only criticism of this is the club should have done this the day they walked into the club.

This is a simple case of restriction of trade, which in my opinion is just wrong.

Why should an owner, any owner at that not be allowed to invest in his/hers business and then use that business to promote their other business?

IE Sir Jim Radcliffe own parts of the Mercedes F1 team and he has the name of his company Ineos plastered on the car.

And if Jimmy want to plaster Ineos on the rags shirts good luck to him.

Problem is that this is all about some vague notion of associated parties, we think specifically designed by the red tops to handicap our sponsorship revenue, not related parties