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

This all boils down to one question. If the laws are found to be illegal according to UK law would you want them changed? Or carry on?

I've asked a few, and they either avoid answering the question or are happy to carry on with the rules. Which is where we are at with football tribalism nowadays.
 
Why the fuck has this civil war narrative got so much traction? It's entirely irrelevant who sides with the premier league and who sides with city. unless I'm wrong, it's my understanding city are claiming it's unlawful, therefore there is no side to choose, it is against the law or it isn't regardless of whether a club approves of it or not.
 
Isn't it a bit crazy, how this is always the press reaction, whenever anyone dares question if the PL might be in the wrong, or is attempting to stop the PL doing what they believe is wrong? Especially City or any clubs with Persian gulf links.

3739668.jpg

"OMG this could destroy all of football, they questioned if a rule needs to be changed because it seems unfair and unlawful... Somebody think of the red shirts!"
 
blueparrot said:
Right, but nobody seems to have any idea if the voting thing is a separate thing, or just a line thats’s part of pages of evidence that’s part of the ATP case and the ‘tyranny of the majority’ a soundbite taken out of context.
The voting thing just seems odd to me as what would we want it replaced with?
Click to expand...

The voting system is fine. What the PL needs is a CEO with balls. Just one ball would be an improvement
 
Bluearmy said:
Was it really that positive. Thought he was more reserved than earlier appearances and didnt seem to think we’d win this new/upcoming APR Arbitration Panel. Plus that we had made Pannicks job more difficult by distracting him/the rest of the legal team from the 115 case. And this Tyranny statement doesnt sit right, even if its not a key part of the submission, dont see us winning on that one at all.

Maybe ill listen again tomorrow, as getting late but feel a little less positive than i did a week ago. Probably not helped by the frankly ludicrous press reaction….
Click to expand...

You don't really think the club is trying to throw out the voting system? There is nothing to "win" on that. The club are trying to build a case that the APT rules that have been implemented are discriminatory to certain clubs. Everything that was in the original article will be part of that case but was cherry-picked by someone without the intellect to understand any of it solely based on the fact that it would generate interest when presented with no context.

Relax and ignore the press. Don't listen to sports journalists on legal matters. They barely seem to understand the game, let alone a complex challenge to the PL based on competition law.
 
ninjamonkey said:
Why the fuck has this civil war narrative got so much traction? It's entirely irrelevant who sides with the premier league and who sides with city. unless I'm wrong, it's my understanding city are claiming it's unlawful, therefore there is no side to choose, it is against the law or it isn't regardless of whether a club approves of it or not.
Click to expand...

I suppose there are two issues. Firstly, if the rules are anti-competitive and secondly, whether certain exemptions from competition law should be made in this case because it's a sporting body.

The first is completely factual with legal precedent and what other clubs think is irrelevant. The second may be influenced by the views of other clubs, I suppose.

I still can't get my head around the fact that such issues can be settled by an arbitration within the PL rules. Can they set legal precedent (say, in regard to the special situation of the PL in competition law? That has never been legally tested as far as I am aware)? With arbitrators from a list chosen by the chairman of a judicial panel chosen by the PL? I struggle with all that.
 
Metalartin said:
Isn't it a bit crazy, how this is always the press reaction, whenever anyone dares question if the PL might be in the wrong, or is attempting to stop the PL doing what they believe is wrong? Especially City or any clubs with Persian gulf links.

3739668.jpg

"OMG this could destroy all of football, they questioned if a rule needs to be changed because it seems unfair and unlawful... Somebody think of the red shirts!"
Click to expand...

Apart from when Forest & Everton questioned if the premier league was wrong. Suddenly that was ok provided “whatabout City” was included.
 
MCC said:
City should really boil some piss and announce some new large sponsorship deals with companies not from the UAE. Khaldoon's blackbook of contacts must be off the scale.
Click to expand...
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I think the PL will examine ANY sponsorship deal under the Feb rule change, not just ‘Associated’.
 
I'm Blue said:
That's exactly what we should be doing next.
Ban all the cunts.
Really pisses me off they get to slag us off all day every day, call us cheats, call us corrupt and we welcome them with open arms, give them free food and drink.
Fuck that!
Ban the cunts!
What they gonna do write a load crap slagging us off?
That horse has long since bolted.
Click to expand...
Even better:
-Let them in but don’t let them out.
-Block their connections so their copy doesn’t reach their office until we have approved it under our new rule:‘Associated Media Cunts.’
- Withdraw cake rights.
- Add large amounts of laxative to their tea. I mean LARGE amounts. Deny access to toilets.
 
Impeccable One said:
Mate, no offense, and I have no training/qualifications in law, but the only issue being ruled on(law) is APT and if it conflicts with Competition laws.

The club, and anyone with a voice, can shout about the 14 vote rule and it being used by a core of teams to try and restrict what City can do, but it’s the method chosen by the PL and we have no legal claim to force them to change it.
Click to expand...
I doubt City are asking for it to be changed but it is evidentiary noise.
 
ninjamonkey said:
Why the fuck has this civil war narrative got so much traction? It's entirely irrelevant who sides with the premier league and who sides with city. unless I'm wrong, it's my understanding city are claiming it's unlawful, therefore there is no side to choose, it is against the law or it isn't regardless of whether a club approves of it or not.
Click to expand...
The other clubs can provide evidence that City have not been targeted selectively as alleged.
 
KS55 said:
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I think the PL will examine ANY sponsorship deal under the Feb rule change, not just ‘Associated’.
Click to expand...

The PL are required to look at any threshold transaction, that is any transaction over a certain amount to check if it is i) an APT, in which case there are other more detailed rules to follow (rules E55-E59) and ii) at FMV (rules E60-E64).

So even if the club gets the more onerous and, in their view, discriminatory, APT rules thrown out, the PL can still look at FMV. Hardly, end of the PL stuff.

I think :)
 
So Lawtons sports desk colleague wife works at Arsenal and accidentaly left details of the court case on the breakfast table?
What we are contesting was reported first in feb with no one really arsed bar a few 115 comments.
Liverpools sponsor found to be terroritst funding dodgy cunts

Tory press office tactic this or sensationaism to bury bad news imho
 
Last edited:
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