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

[halfcenturyup]

Are City taking legal action against the pl ? Would this be heard in court ?

I'm thick lol

It's being heard in a tribunal under Section X of the PL rules. The PL chooses an arbitrator, the club chooses one and the two arbitrators choose a chairman. But it's all under Section X of the PL rules.

@projectriver pointed out, btw, that under Section X, there is no reasoning published. Just the award. Which is strange. Or not. I don't know :)

 

[Shazza458]

People thought we were in for a quiet summer, keep the squad together with 1 or 2 additions. Nothing major

Now with this legal action and the players who reportedly might want out, looks like we could be in for a rollercoaster

There’s me thinking I could put Manchester City Football Club to the back of my mind for at least a few weeks! How naive lol!

Never boring being a blue though

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

He’s two faced is our Henry. He needs to decide what philosophy of competition he actually believes. If he favours genuine open competition he should welcome our action. If he believes competition should be limited, he would favour the current rules. He’s always put on this air of superiority and knowing something nobody else does. Public school?

I’ve always considered him a stuck up little twat

 

[Centurions]

It's being heard in a tribunal under Section X of the PL rules. The PL chooses an arbitrator, the club chooses one and the two arbitrators choose a chairman. But it's all under Section X of the PL rules.

@projectriver pointed out, btw, that under Section X, there is no reasoning published. Just the award. Which is strange. Or not. I don't know :)

So the same panel would decide on the damages if we win?

 

[abu13]

I'm a little confused about how we are somehow bringing down the PL with this action?

As I understand it we are challanging the ammendment to the related part rules. We still have to apply to financial rules both with the PL & UEFA.

My understanding is that this change would allow the PL to decide who and how a club can receive sponsorship. I am sure we must have some quite compelling evidence if we are pursuing this one.

And yet again, the whole thing is being portrayed yet again as the mighty City are in the wrong and it is up to the poor PL to fight off their tyrany.

No thought that we may have evidence where one club is being allowed to do one thing while we are being prevented in doing the same, everyone can see that the rules on FFP that were introduced were designed with the aim of preserving the status quo. These rules have been tweaked time and time again and not once have they been done so with any other aim, they have however been clearly aimed to target / limit specific clubs.

 

[VOOMER]

People thought we were in for a quiet summer, keep the squad together with 1 or 2 additions. Nothing major

Now with this legal action and the players who reportedly might want out, looks like we could be in for a rollercoaster

There’s me thinking I could put Manchester City Football Club to the back of my mind for at least a few weeks! How naive lol!

Never boring being a blue though

Sniff, sniff, sniff

Feel free to moderate this if I'm being overzealous

 

[Gray]

Whatever happens it is long overdue that the Club stood up the prolonged bullying it has suffered from the football governing bodies and other clubs who themselves are not without sin.

 

[sheikmedick]

Is all this why that wanker Masters went to Arsenal on the last game of the season?

 

[Dubai Blue]

It’s important to remember that the PL vote on this rule change was 12 teams for, 6 against and 2 abstentions, which in itself was pretty contentious. We may have more support from other clubs on this than people realise.

I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?

 

[Eccles Blue]

It's being heard in a tribunal under Section X of the PL rules. The PL chooses an arbitrator, the club chooses one and the two arbitrators choose a chairman. But it's all under Section X of the PL rules.

@projectriver pointed out, btw, that under Section X, there is no reasoning published. Just the award. Which is strange. Or not. I don't know :)

So basically we are NOT taking legal action against the PL then? We are taking them to a tribunal similar to an employee who gets sacked taking their employer to a tribunal? That's not judged by a court of law so surely is not legal action just layman action?

Or am I being stupid? It does happen because, as I said earlier I just thought we were playing the best football ever and upsetting the other teams.

 

[Centurions]

The journalists have been a disgrace with their reporting of this case. City bad Premier League good. They haven't explained any of the rule changes to the masses but have said that this a fight for the survival of the League. Fucking hell hyperbole at its finest.

Yep, I was listening to SSN this morning (Winter et al) and they were all obviously starting with the premise that we were in the wrong for doing this without really being able or willing to distinguish between related party rules, associated party rules or the 115 charges.

 

[Keeper!]

& with his assets he’ll continue to get richer & richer buying more & more which takes it away from working classes. They don’t keep the cash in the bank as that’s a bad investment but he’d still be a billionaire.

That's a completely different argument, he is self made and respect to him for that.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

It has been reported and never denied by the PL.

Vetted ??

The likelihood is that he was offered the job IF he changed investment rules to protect the red cartel clubs and went after City !!

Three other eminently suitable candidates were offered the role but withdrew when the understood the mandate.


Get it all out in the public domain City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

So the same panel would decide on the damages if we win?

I read somewhere that the club first wants arbitration on the principle and then arbitration on the damages. The same tribunal is able to do that:


But I don't know if they will.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Sniff, sniff, sniff

Feel free to moderate this if I'm being overzealous

Forget mods. We need

 

[BlueMonkey79]

I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?

It's a 70 per cent majority. So 14 out of 20 is 70 per cent. Minus the 2 abstentions. 70 per cent of 18 is 12 ish. So they got their majority JUST!

 

[petrusha]

Been busy this week and have no time to plough through 120-odd pages on this. I may therefore be duplicating stuff that's been said before, in whioch case I'm sorry. Anyway, here goes.

1. The bottom line is that this is going to be a highly technical case that depends on very complex intricacies of UK competition law. Such cases are usually very difficult for a claimant to prove.

2. However, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed to see various prominent City accounts on X wading in a criticising the club based on the reporting of this issue so far.

3. For a start, nearly all of what we know about the matter is based on a story that a newspaper has sourced based on an extensive leak from our opponent or from a rival member club within it. That constitutes a bad-faith source which is deliberately giving a skewed, incomplete and likely misleading view of events, so I'd wager that City's position would look more ostensibly reasonable if we had an impartial account produced in good faith of the respective positions of the parties.

4. Further, I think that the senior executives of the club deserve our trust at this point. That could change as events progress, though I hope and believe it won't. However, I don't see grounds at this stage for any committed Blue to mistrust them.

5. For City to have brought this action, those running the club must believe the following two things among others: (a) that City have suffered a genuine loss as a result of the PL applying the provisions we're challenging; and (b) that such application has been discriminatory.

6. IF the two circumstances listed in point 5 were true (and please note that this is a conditional sentence, while also referring back to point 4), it'd be perfectly reasonable for the club to seek to safeguard its position in this way. Indeed, there's a strong argument that the directors would be remiss if they failed to do so.

I don't see that it's currently possible to say any more than the above with any authority. But, as with the thread on the so-called '115 charges', where literally almost nothing of note has happened in public since February 2023, BM is nonetheless likely to amass thousands of pages of comment.

 

[Dubai Blue]

It's a 70 per cent majority. So 14 out of 20 is 70 per cent. Minus the 2 abstentions. 70 per cent of 18 is 12 ish. So they got their majority JUST!

Ah okay, cheers

 

[Centurions]

I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?

I think any abstentions affects the voting threshold needed, which always makes me wonder why on earth anyone would abstain.

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

Which Six clubs voted against the original proposal?