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

[Coatigan]

They're completely different. Our charges go up to 2018 and these rules were introduced in 2021. Charges against City by the PL weren't brought until 2023. This case has been building for a while, at the latest it began when Newcastle were taken over and PL clubs voted in these rules in late 2021. We abstained and cited that the process was unlawful - so that's a big hint that we already had a legal opinion and we've probably spent the subsequent time building our case behind the scenes.

Not really. The challenge is not to the 2021 rules, it is to the February '24 amendment. It hasn't been building up for a while, it isn't retrospective. It happened at the time, and seems to be specific to that alone.

 

[Coatigan]

Biggest issue in this is the leak. Club responsible should be sanctioned if identified.

What makes you think it is coming from a club? Rather than the PL themselves. It is after all their chief legal counsel that has given formal amd exclusive commentary on it that the article freely quotes.

 

[hammocity]

But it won’t be “unlimited spending by all PL Clubs” Will it ? That will only apply to those Clubs who can afford it or are considered “investible” (a Dragons Den term). That’s maybe a handful of PL Clubs.

Not forgetting UEFA FFP Rules.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's hard to keep pace with this thread so I apologise if the information I ask for has been posted. I have read the Times article (thanks to PB) in which it defines an "associated party transaction" as a sponsorship deal between a club and a company to which the club's owners are linked. This seems vague in the extreme and very similar to a related party transaction. Could anyone provide a definition of an ATP as it is defined in the PL rules because my understanding is that City's objections are that the PL definition is actually very specific in the area it is concerned with and , therefore, clearly discriminatory.

I believe that City may also object to being told how much it can "charge" for such deals and I suspect companies will also object to limits on their commercial freedom but I am alarmed at what I see as yet another example of the curse that is affecting political life in the UK. Groups are victimised for reasons of colour, race, religion over many years. Then we get an "outrage" such as City spending billions and so something "has to be done" and the reaction from the persecuted is treated to a pack of lies and misrepresentation from a pack of the usual press hounds so that opinion is prepared for disgraceful attitudes to be normalised and outrageous measures accepted. Trump is a master of this approach and many of the Americans involved in club ownership are supporters of Trump .....

 

[sir baconface]

…. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.

Fair comment but I personally don’t care too much whether we are “innocent”….. only that we win.

The green-eyed knicker wetters from other fan bases have long judged us guilty of everything from ruining football to eating babies. We are now a much hated club and piss will boil whatever the outcome. We’re either “guilty of cheating as everyone knew all along” or we “cheated and bullied to defeat the charges”.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

It's hard to keep pace with this thread so I apologise if the information I ask for has been posted. I have read the Times article (thanks to PB) in which it defines an "associated party transaction" as a sponsorship deal between a club and a company to which the club's owners are linked. This seems vague in the extreme and very similar to a related party transaction. Could anyone provide a definition of an ATP as it is defined in the PL rules because my understanding is that City's objections are that the PL definition is actually very specific in the area it is concerned with and , therefore, clearly discriminatory.

I believe that City may also object to being told how much it can "charge" for such deals and I suspect companies will also object to limits on their commercial freedom but I am alarmed at what I see as yet another example of the curse that is affecting political life in the UK. Groups are victimised for reasons of colour, race, religion over many years. Then we get an "outrage" such as City spending billions and so something "has to be done" and the reaction from the persecuted is treated to a pack of lies and misrepresentation from a pack of the usual press hounds so that opinion is prepared for disgraceful attitudes to be normalised and outrageous measures accepted. Trump is a master of this approach and many of the Americans involved in club ownership are supporters of Trump .....

Yes , incredibly vague as I have commented. This alone should be enough without even going into the witch hunt stuff

 

[halfcenturyup]

What makes you think it is coming from a club? Rather than the PL themselves. It is after all their chief legal counsel that has given formal amd exclusive commentary on it that the article freely quotes.

The PL got permission from the arbitrators to communicate about the case with the clubs to prepare their defence, hence the comments from the PL legal counsel. Plausible deniability maybe, but I reckon the PL will be furious. These leaks don't do it any favours when they have charged the club with acting in bad faith.

 

[jonah62]

Are my ears deceiving me?
Stefan reckons City will lose this case

 

[brazilians hurt]

I'm not naive enough to believe City are doing this purely for the good of the game.

Maybe not the game but certainly IMHO the PL

 

[richards30]

Is there not a potentially bigger story that the premier league have been implementing rules illegal under UK law? How arrogant and dopey can they potentially be to have done that? We surely must have good reason to push this out there and think it’s likely to be true? Then the question needs to be asked why these rules were put in place, why the spending and investing rules keep changing and who are the main clubs behind it?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

When we signed Haaland that finally broke them. They were always going to go for us but I think that was the proverbial straw.

But they’d have been happy had he gone to Madrid. That would have further denuded the PL product but most of the ‘major players’ seem to have a paucity of ambition. With the Italians and Germans now having extra CL places and if Barca can get their shit together, the PL could soon find itself where Division One was in 1990, only this time they’ll have thrown it all away themselves!

 

[jim tolmies perm]

It's possible we might lose this one. But it will prove to the powers that be the sooner the football regulator is in place the better for the game as a whole.

One can only hope that a more altruistic Labour govt led by an actual footy fan (albeit gooner but I think a fair minded one) will grasp this particular nettle

 

[Protein Junkie]

The Vitriolic ignorant knuckle scraping Joe Public is blowing the proverbial gasket over our decision to go after the PL at last.

Driven by Social Media and MSM journalists the simple way to understand this is that City are banged to rights on 115 and this is why.

All the usual bollocks of time barring, brown envelopes and tying up the process with an army of lawyers now co-inhabits with lies about the nature of legal action, we don’t want rules because we broke them ad infinitum.

We are guilty though……….. guilty of bursting the bubble of millions of needy insecure halfwits who signed up to supporting Rags and Dippers. It was meant to be a lifetime of success supporting the cartel to alleviate a mundane and thoughtless existence.

Sorry to blow your minds but we will not be the man with one leg invited to an arse kicking contest.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not really. The challenge is not to the 2021 rules, it is to the February '24 amendment. It hasn't been building up for a while, it isn't retrospective. It happened at the time, and seems to be specific to that alone.

I think it must be retrospective, otherwise the club couldn't have incurred a "loss" between the date of the new rules and the date of the club's claim.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

What makes you think it is coming from a club? Rather than the PL themselves. It is after all their chief legal counsel that has given formal amd exclusive commentary on it that the article freely quotes.

You might ask yourself who's running the PL ? If they can veto top appointments...

 

[Coatigan]

I think it must be retrospective, otherwise the club couldn't have incurred a "loss" between the date of the new rules and the date of the club's claim.

Can't be. The timing simply doesn't allow for it.

The loss reportedly is a separate case, dependant on the outcome of the first, and claimed on the basis of delays to deals due to uncertainty around the rules, which can cover tany period from the initial challenge to the ultimate conclusion of the case. As I understand it.

 

[CC1]

The Vitriolic ignorant knuckle scraping Joe Public is blowing the proverbial gasket over our decision to go after the PL at last.

Driven by Social Media and MSM journalists the simple way to understand this is that City are banged to rights on 115 and this is why.

All the usual bollocks of time barring, brown envelopes and tying up the process with an army of lawyers now co-inhabits with lies about the nature of legal action, we don’t want rules because we broke them ad infinitum.

We are guilty though……….. guilty of bursting the bubble of millions of needy insecure halfwits who signed up to supporting Rags and Dippers. It was meant to be a lifetime of success supporting the cartel to alleviate a mundane and thoughtless existence.

Sorry to blow your minds but we will not be the man with one leg invited to an arse kicking contest.

Stefan doesn't sound very hopeful about our success on Talks****

 

[TinFoilHat]

The Vitriolic ignorant knuckle scraping Joe Public is blowing the proverbial gasket over our decision to go after the PL at last.

Driven by Social Media and MSM journalists the simple way to understand this is that City are banged to rights on 115 and this is why.

All the usual bollocks of time barring, brown envelopes and tying up the process with an army of lawyers now co-inhabits with lies about the nature of legal action, we don’t want rules because we broke them ad infinitum.

We are guilty though……….. guilty of bursting the bubble of millions of needy insecure halfwits who signed up to supporting Rags and Dippers. It was meant to be a lifetime of success supporting the cartel to alleviate a mundane and thoughtless existence.

Sorry to blow your minds but we will not be the man with one leg invited to an arse kicking contest.

I don't think it's a coincidence The Times leaked it first onto their radio channel, which company also owns Talkshite. Their studios are in the same building.

Naturally they are banging the City cheats narrative. Stefan trying his best on Talkshite.

 

[Norbert D]

But they’d have been happy had he gone to Madrid. That would have further denuded the PL product but most of the ‘major players’ seem to have a paucity of ambition. With the Italians and Germans now having extra CL places and if Barca can get their shit together, the PL could soon find itself where Division One was in 1990, only this time they’ll have thrown it all away themselves!

Correct, just like they celebrated when City got knocked out of the CL, it hurts them but they don’t care.

 

[Coatigan]

Does anyone else think this fucking sucks.

I just want to watch a bunch of guys kick a ball about, comment or read on their tactics and ability. Maybe see what new players come in, what the new kit looks like here and there, or what the stadium might become.

Instead, I need to read all this pish, about processes and tribunal X and so on and so on. Ffs football.