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

jim tolmies perm said:
Sorry mate not seen relevant info, so who is conducting this hearing then?
Click to expand...

A panel of three arbitrators selected from the PL's Judicial Panel (the same list of professionals used to create the 115 independent panel) but in this case one chosen by the PL, one by the club and the chairman chosen by the two others.

If you remember, the three panel members for the 115 were chosen by the PL.
 
Well its being reported on ssn this morning by 2 tabloid pundits (one was winter, the other i think they said his name was cross?)

It was the latter i only caught saying everyone needs to stand against city for good of the game
 
halfcenturyup said:
A panel of three arbitrators selected from the PL's Judicial Panel (the same list of professionals used to create the 115 independent panel) but in this case one chosen by the PL, one by the club and the chairman chosen by the two others.

If you remember, the three panel members for the 115 were chosen by the PL.
Click to expand...
That sounds fucking insane when looked at in isolation.
 
BlueMoonz1977 said:
Well its being reported on ssn this morning by 2 tabloid pundits (one was winter, the other i think they said his name was cross?)

It was the latter i only caught saying everyone needs to stand against city for good of the game
Click to expand...
Cross from The Sun. The narrative is being set.

Edit: it's John Cross from The Mirror, my bad.
 
Last edited:
jim tolmies perm said:
I certainly hope so and I believe these comments have been uttered by some of our adversaries
Click to expand...
there is literally a public picture of the chairmen of liverpool, arsenal and united having dinner very publicly and while it is far from against the law to have dinner with business associates it would be difficult to argue against some level of collusion between them.
 
BlueMoonz1977 said:
Well its being reported on ssn this morning by 2 tabloid pundits (one was winter, the other i think they said his name was cross?)

It was the latter i only caught saying everyone needs to stand against city for good of the game
Click to expand...
We are now the pariah’s of football. That is for sure.
 
butlerkb said:
Makes us look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole.At the same time they are defending the 115 charges too, so I’m sure greater minds than mine are behind this, but it won’t win us any popularity contests.Also, if unlimited spending prevails, we risk turning premier league into La Ligurian or SPL !Not sure how I feel on this.
Click to expand...
Popularity contest? It’s football, I dislike every other club. Fuck them

Unlimited spending blah blah, you sound like someone who remembers the past as a glorious time

Was it bollocks, Utd spent what the fuck they wanted as did others. Their history is built on it

I want City, if they could to destroy it all if I’m honest

I could live with us being the last winners of the PL as it is now, last 4 times
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you think City bring a legal case against the Premier League in any way will force a comprimise with the Premier League dropping the charges. No side will want to lose and if both sides lose then it could be catastophic for the Premier League.
 
Centurions said:
Cross from The Sun. The narrative is being set.
Click to expand...
Cheers for clearing up who and where he works....

Yep, no chance this story is not spun to make us out as the villians again and the arbitors for all thats wrong in the game

I just pray we take them to the cleaners once and for all
 
mancboy said:
there is literally a public picture of the chairmen of liverpool, arsenal and united having dinner very publicly and while it is far from against the law to have dinner with business associates it would be difficult to argue against some level of collusion between them.
Click to expand...

You could almost describe it as an associated party……
 
Gray said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Also, relations between City and UEFA seem reasonable at the moment, which by itself is not a good look for the EPL. City don't seem to have a problem with UEFA version of the regulations but feel the EPL have gone way too far this time - as indeed they have.
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
Which Six clubs voted against the original proposal?
Click to expand...

I’d hazard a guess Chelsea, Newcastle and Villa would be three of them. Two are being held back by FFP and Chelsea seem to have some associated party links with their current sponsor. Maybe Wolves would be in there too they have a group of billionaire Chinese owners who could bring sponsors to the table and are also being held back by ffp.
 
skillman said:
Interesting, this. If we've chosen to launch legal action, we'll be comfortable being able to prove what Stefan is saying here.
Click to expand...
This all day.
Read the context of how we operate.
If we have to react to sudden surprise changes from the powers that be, we won’t always be on solid ground.
But if we instigate moves ourselves, you can bet a load of due diligence has already been done to put us firmly in the driving seat one way or another.

Sun Tsu’s Art of War my friends - it may not be immediately apparent, and yes, there will be tactical manoeuvres involved along the way, but I believe we are witnessing true strategy at play.
 
I think the most encouraging aspect of yesterday’s announcement is the way it has been egregiously reported. By the paid hacks, the twitterati and some on here.
It’s got NOTHING to do with 115. End of.
It’s got everything to do with the arbitrary nature or PL rule making that are changed, seemingly on a whim from certain vested interests.
‘Fair value’ is not an alien concept in any way but, having someone else decide what is ‘fair value’, especially if it’s from the same country as your owner is from seems like a giant step to far.
Not only that, one thing that’s always been accepted, even lauded by the usual suspects, is being able to ‘spend what you earn’, again perfectly reasonable.
Then City start serial winning and, consequently, earning huge amounts of prize money (over £175M last year) and also have an academy that’s pumping out profit after profit on player sales.
A transfer team that’s buying Akanji, Alvarez and Ortega, for example, for less than £30M between them and they now want to tie spending to the earnings of the BOTTOM placed team in the PL!

You can be certain that if Pep leaves, city drop off and Radcliffe is successful in his OT transformation, that rule will be gone almost immediately.

Finally, the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ reflects that City are a single shareholder in the PL, but it’s reported as ‘but they’ve got more than almost everyone else so what are they moaning about’ by the usual suspects who are either very ill informed or spectacularly good at misdirection. Given that this has been in train since February and certain other news came out yesterday, you’d be forgiven for thinking it’s the latter.
 
BlueMoonz1977 said:
Well its being reported on ssn this morning by 2 tabloid pundits (one was winter, the other i think they said his name was cross?)

It was the latter i only caught saying everyone needs to stand against city for good of the game
Click to expand...
this is genuinely hilarious, so football is only good when a team in red or one of the history teams is winning, where was this rhetoric when the rags and dippers were winning everything and signing players for 30m? Oh thats right it wasnt there, and why wasnt it there because football is only good when the 'right' team wins according to the press.
 
What time period does this all relate to? Is this historical at all or would it just be to prevent something going forward?

It strikes me that if we can show our revenue has been restricted then that impacts how much money we have for FFP/PSR etc?
 
Can someone highlight or care to research just the level of colluding that has or could have gone on...

One to start it is off, is why were the rags and dippers included to vet the new PL chairman...

I remember, a few years ago now, I found a report/article that certain clubs (including foreign clubs) had met prior to our pep era, on how they were going to stop us becoming a force in the football world
 
kippax_blueboy said:
Do you think City bring a legal case against the Premier League in any way will force a comprimise with the Premier League dropping the charges. No side will want to lose and if both sides lose then it could be catastophic for the Premier League.
Click to expand...
I don’t want the charges dropped. I want the case to go ahead, City to win and get the complete exoneration plus as much in damages as possible to end the witch hunt against us for ever and a day.
 
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