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

Plain Speaking said:
That's the vote from February that was being queried
Click to expand...

It’s not, that’s about the spending cap. The regulation were challenging is the APT rules. The one you’ve linked there only had four clubs vote against it, the APT rules had six against and two abstentions.
 
mancboy said:
As i said yesterday, this is not about money or anything else its about having what they perceive as the 'right' teams winning it and they arent even trying to hide that anymore, where was the outrage when the dippers stripped southampton bare, the rags want to sign evertons best player in a cut price deal this year no problem, arsenal took brentfords keeper on loan fantastic, all this is okay because according to the press these are the 'right' teams.
Click to expand...
No it's racism pure and simple. If Newcastle were winning things it would be just the same for them.
 
meltonblue said:
It’s not, that’s about the spending cap. The regulation were challenging is the APT rules. The one you’ve linked there only had four clubs vote against it, the APT rules had six against and two abstentions.
Click to expand...

That’s 12 out of 20 clubs voting for something, hardly a unanimous majority and with the block of American owned clubs in the Premier league it’s pretty easy to horse and cart legislation through that suits the rags and dippers with their hangers on in tie.
 
Rory Bluelow said:
Posted this in the media thread but it’s probably more relevant here (sorry for spamming blues)

I’ve said this many times elsewhere and others make the same point - but come on City - fucking do something. How can we be the world’s best club - a superb organisation, wonderful team, the best management, the very best ownership - and be seemingly utterly clueless when in comes protecting our public image and managing relationships with an unremittingly hostile media. It’s really shouldn’t be that difficult.
The first thing I’d do today would be an untraceable leak of our full claim document - this would doubtless expose Lawton’s cherrypicking and spin - at least it would muddy the waters. I’m sure someone could find a full copy amongst some refuse in a back street in Abu Dhabi - “God knows how it got there” :)
But what do I know ….just an FOC fed up of us getting trashed and wanting to fight back.
Click to expand...
Well, I can only thank the lord that you're not our owner. We're managed by grownups, not children.
 
SWP's back said:
No, they check every deal to see if it’s “associated” and if it is, then they look to fair market.

I think City’s main challenge is using “associated” rather than the generally accepted accounting rules used in the U.K. and Europe which are “related”.
Click to expand...
1000000381.png
1000000383.png

They look at all threshold transactions to determine if any are i) "associated or ii) not at fmv. If any are "associated" they have more rules to follow, if they are not fmv, they follow the fmv review rules.

But yes, City are probably just claiming the associated party transaction rules are onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary. I seem to remember a quote from an unnamed City source (in the Athletic, was it?) saying that is the only claim.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
That’s 12 out of 20 clubs voting for something, hardly a unanimous majority and with the block of American owned clubs in the Premier league it’s pretty easy to horse and cart legislation through that suits the rags and dippers with their hangers on in tie.
Click to expand...
Which (if true) is part of the claim with the argument that two thirds is far too low a threshold for forcing major changes through. I would guess we want a much higher percentage due to the number of yank owned clubs.
 
mcfcphil said:
I was previously of the opinion this latest legal challenge had absolutely no link to the 115 case.

However, the highlighted part of your post could probably used as mitigation against the non-cooperation charges. You could not wish to have a better example of how the Premier League is unable to uphold confidentiality rules during a legal process.

This presents an obvious risk to any club if there is a high likelihood confidential data/information it shares with the PL is at risk of being leaked / used for nefarious purposes.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any reasonable mitigation for the non-cooperation unless we have already historically provided information or that the information requested doesn't exist.

I can't see any arbitrator siding with us because of a concern over things being leaked. CAS were concerned by the leaks from UEFA but still punished us for non-cooperation.

It's important to remember that in the eyes of an arbitrator the governing body/authority will be fair and impartial. They will not accept that there's bias and corruption within the organisation. So the rules have to be followed for them to make a decision, and failing to cooperate undermines the system so has to be punished.

From City's perspective it's a key strategy to withhold certain information because we know the corruption within UEFA and the PL. Why give them it and allow them to assess and determine it against us? What that does is requires the arbitrator to find a reason to quash that, as opposed to looking at it from a truly impartial position and therefore making the correct decision.

Our claim is we have irrefutable evidence and it's something SJIAC picks up on consistently when it comes to non-cooperation. He has a point, because by definition irrefutable means impossible to disprove. But in this case, with the agenda at play within the PL, we have to hold that evidence for the arbitrator in this case the PL panel.
 
The media are loving all this aren't they...consistently peddling anti-city articles that is their to create tension, hatred, envy and whatever name you want to give it.

These articles also including blatant racist undertones that have created the phrase 'dirty arab oil money' - as to propose that any money or wealth coming from the Gulf is illegitimate, especially in western society

You peddle a story consistently it becomes adopted by the masses - and that is what is happening/happened

I read a comment this morning elsewhere, about how City were a nothing club 15 years ago and how the team of the poster played us off the park! And the comment went on to say how what has happened at our club could happen at a huddersfield or other low level league team - so this person wants us and other clubs to remain a "nothing" club, whilst the established cartel clubs continue mopping up trophies - that is just a tribal fan point of view that cant accept our success =- so be it

But the tactics and continued narrative of the so-called sports media in the UK has a hell of a lot of blame on their shoulders. And although that may not have an adverse effect on the CFG dealings, it does have a huge impact on the fanbase
 
manimanc said:
What makes me really laugh is the media saying we're ruining the Premier League?

Excuse me?

These same twats in the press having a pile on with the 115, having us guilty before any trial or hearing, printing absolute bollocks and relegation and points deducted, whipping rival fans up into a frenzy.

Not ONE journalist has said we might be innocent, every single one of them has us guilty as charged and NOW there are accusing us of ruining the league.

The cheeky fuckin bastards, the lot of them need to banned from the Etihad next season, every single one of the shithouse's.
Click to expand...
Don't ban them but give them the very least required in food, drink and facilities make sure that things go wrong, broadband connection is turned off and on, make it as uncomfortable as possible when they complain say well we have had to cutback due to the need PL financial rules. Move the media verification to the top end of the North Carpark well away from their normal parking so they have to walk as far as possible. Make sure they can see our special guests enjoying the best hospitality possible
 
Stoned Rose said:
Man of the match performance from Borsen.
Click to expand...
I thought he was very balanced and presented his points excellently. Also good thoughtful and respectful input from Murphy.

I do wish he had made the point that the ‘anchoring’ proposal in conjunction with the ‘operating costs as a % of overall turnover’ would prevent trillionaire owners from ridiculous levels of investment.
And also on the matter of running costs- the decision to undertake the assessment on sponsorship deals (with the need for someone to assess the sponsorship business case) and (I think) the clubs requirement to provide details of competitive bids from others who failed to get the gig is a big costly exercise.
 
BlueMoonz1977 said:
The media are loving all this aren't they...consistently peddling anti-city articles that is their to create tension, hatred, envy and whatever name you want to give it.

These articles also including blatant racist undertones that have created the phrase 'dirty arab oil money' - as to propose that any money or wealth coming from the Gulf is illegitimate, especially in western society

You peddle a story consistently it becomes adopted by the masses - and that is what is happening/happened

I read a comment this morning elsewhere, about how City were a nothing club 15 years ago and how the team of the poster played us off the park! And the comment went on to say how what has happened at our club could happen at a huddersfield or other low level league team - so this person wants us and other clubs to remain a "nothing" club, whilst the established cartel clubs continue mopping up trophies - that is just a tribal fan point of view that cant accept our success =- so be it

But the tactics and continued narrative of the so-called sports media in the UK has a hell of a lot of blame on their shoulders. And although that may not have an adverse effect on the CFG dealings, it does have a huge impact on the fanbase
Click to expand...
yep - and sooner or later, one or more of them is going to get a well deserved hiding
 
Gordyola said:
I feel you have the wrong end of a shitty stick
Firstly City are not campaigning for “unlimited spending” although it wasnt a problem when it was the cartel’s MO
Popularity is irrelevant and too later anyhow
This case is seeking fairness and the return to the Feb 24 status quo
With repect to the 115 then the club have every right to defend its self especially as it claims irrefutable evidence of it’s innocence
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
waspish said:
The new rule maybe has stopped us using the Etihad as our main shirt sponsor and why we going to sue
Click to expand...
waspish said:
The new rule maybe has stopped us using the Etihad as our main shirt sponsor and why we going to sue
Click to expand...
Would the Etihad deal be under threat here? Is it related or associated? I suppose associated as SM doesn't own Etihad, although the media and red tops would have us think he does.
So Arsewipes can be bankrolled by Emirates but City not sponsored by their neighbouring competitor?
Stinks to high hell
 
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