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

jockblue said:
But it wouldnt have mattered if the vote rejected the change.
Suggests either City hadn't read the room right on how many would vote against it, or didn't understand the 2/3rds rule (as many of us thought it was 14 no matter what)
Click to expand...
They'd need to be quite sure of which way everyone was voting.Maybe they wanted a legal challenge, they had threatened it if the change went ahead.
 
SWP's back said:
Tbf both myself and @Prestwich_Blue did challenge him on his ESPN article where he showed he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about (in a cordial manner) and he liked PB’s reply to my comment.
Click to expand...
Didn't realise it was you I responded to. Marcotti is usually sound on financial stuff and we've engaged cordially on a number of occasions. He was wrong here though.
 
kippaxking79 said:
Never get why teams like Fulham, Brighton. West ham for example cosy up to the fuckers. It's like the said teams are happy to sit and challenge for the odd Europa Conference position and a good cup run. Zero ambition!

It's like they are happy to look up and never be a part of the elite, as long as they finish higher than 18th position every season.
Click to expand...

Fulham
en.wikipedia.org

Shahid Khan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Brighton
en.wikipedia.org

Tony Bloom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
West Ham
en.wikipedia.org

West Ham United F.C. - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Each one has some dodgy elements and money laundering is always a side business for top tier sports clubs
 
supercity88 said:
Realistically though, there's a huge percentage of people that aren't on social media or are scrolling past all of that shite. People don't need to be offended by it. It's keyboard wankers writing absolute nonsense. See it, ignore it. Because it relates to something we're passionate about we obviously get riled up by it, but it doesn't make a difference what we think. If it wasn't the charges, there would be another reason people would find to hate us and claim our success didn't count.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20240607_141857_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Thats a good podcast that Stefan shared on Twitter.
Mark Chapman, Gabby Logan and a sports lawyer.

Basically saying that its not that big a deal and no matter the outcome it won't change a great deal. And that everyone has seen "man city taking the premier league to court" since Tuesday and gone into a frenzy
 
jockblue said:
Can someone clear something up for me.

The rules are that 2/3rds of the PL must vote to approve something, so that the new rule was approved by 12 of the 18 clubs who voted (2 abstained including us)

So, why didn't we just vote against it - it would have been 12/7/1 and it would have been defeated. Job done surely??
Click to expand...

We don't know how the club voted. Some say abstained, others say voted against. It is all guesswork.

M18CTID said:
Can someone clear something up? Are we suing the PL with this action? Or does that come later if we win the case?
Click to expand...

Nobody knows. The papers make it sound like they are two separate things, but then a lot of what they say is their own take anyway.
 
jaiguruKun said:
I thought the 12-6 vote was to bring in FFP at all and the AP sponsorship rules cleared much more comfortably. Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Yes, City abstained in 2021 and voted against in 2024, iirc.

Edit: Tbf, and taking into account other responses, it was reported that way but we don't know for a fact because the PL is as opaque as shit.
 
Last edited:
jockblue said:
But it wouldnt have mattered if the vote rejected the change.
Suggests either City hadn't read the room right on how many would vote against it, or didn't understand the 2/3rds rule (as many of us thought it was 14 no matter what)
Click to expand...

Depends. (Assuming the club abstained), you vote against it, might win. It just comes back with a minor tweak, and then you might lose. You refuse to legitimise it, you can then challenge it if you think it is illegal.
 
Coatigan said:
Nobody knows. The papers make it sound like they are two separate things, but then a lot of what they say is their own take anyway.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm embroiled in an argument with a dickhead Arsenal fan who reckons we're suing the PL. My point to him is that that will only happen if we win this case against them so as things stand, we're not suing them for the time being.
 
Sibierskii said:
Get some rat journo to leak a story and get all the rags, dippers and tarquins foaming at their mouths in their mother's box room.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Sheikh should have words with his father in law and point out that Arsenal and FA have been discriminative against City Gulf Stares) and Emirates sponsorship should terminate at the end of the current contract?
 
I didn't think the claim here was that we were against market value, the claim here is allowing market value to be dictated by an algorithm controlled and managed by rival clubs? Am I wrong?
 
route46 said:
What could the Premier league do if Saudi sponsor City and Abu Dhabi sponsor Newcastle?
Click to expand...

Nothing. But sponsors still lose out though, and that's what City are trying to prevent.

The sponsors don't exist for the sole purpose of funding clubs, that's exactly the narrative being spun here. They want to exploit business opportunities being associated with the cluns, as much as the clubs want their investment. Swapsies, stops everyone getting the benefit of the deals.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
I didn't think the claim here was that we were against market value, the claim here is allowing market value to be dictated by an algorithm controlled and managed by rival clubs? Am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Well, we haven't seen the claim, but I would imagine the club is suggesting that APT rules are onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary and are therefore anti-competitive.

I guess they must have examples with sponsorships where the rules have led to delays and lost opportunities (it seems they are claiming damages) and they are using the whole history of FFP and how it has been implemented to show it has largely been targeted at City and, more lately, Newcastle.

Just guesswork.
 
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