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

waspish said:
And top four play off to be title champions! So finish fourth and could win the title
Click to expand...
I think you mean top 8 surely.

In fact I’m amazed that they haven’t pushed for a play off like in rugby league, so they can downgrade the champions and have an extra money spinning Premiership Play-off title, and if City made it to the final they’d make it the day before the CL Final just in case.

CTID
 
cheekybids said:
Can they do it, charge us for it knowing that eventually we will overturn it on a ‘technicality’ that it’s not in the rules.
Click to expand...

I don't think even the PL are that stupid.

Iirc, the rules are applied to any new sponsorships, or to any renewal of an existing sponsorship.

I think it's more likely that Etihad don't fancy a dispute with the PL when they are thinking about listing. It wouldn't look good if it is publicised they are paying more than they should for sponsorship because of "associated" reasons.
 
Following Samuel's piece, how do we allocate Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey, Ducky Lucky, Chicken Licken to these journalists: Henry Winter, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew, Jonathan Wilson, Ian Herbert and Oliver Holt?

Did I sense a touch of disdain from Samuel to these "Oxbridge set" journalists?
 
Ive not read the new rules anywhere but heard it reported the PL can revise an existing deal going back 3 years.

If the APT rules find a particular sponsorship overvalued I suspect the 3 year provision will be the PSR calculation and they will deduct the balance from their FMV estimate x 3 for the coming estimation period.

No wonder City said "I don't fucking think so".
That and revealing commercialy sensitive runner up bids to your direct competitors, It's fucking ridiculous and a blatent stitch up.

Let's see if this IC has got any balls at all or they are more red shirt lackeys.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Following Samuel's piece, how do we allocate Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey, Ducky Lucky, Chicken Licken to these journalists: Henry Winter, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew, Jonathan Wilson, Ian Herbert and Oliver Holt?

Did I sense a touch of disdain from Samuel to these "Oxbridge set" journalists?
Click to expand...

Associated Posh Tossers……
 
blueparrot said:
It’s more a media and social media thing than a real life thing.
Click to expand...
These two things are often confused.
Since the title win, I’ve been stopped on the street in Yerkershire, twice. Once by a blue and then by a pair of boys about ten years old wanting to know about City. Nobody has complained. Of course you’ll get that at a game but, surprise surprise, that’s not real life either. It’s theatre.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
They can't go back three years. It's not in the rules.
Click to expand...
If we strike a deal in 2020 for three years and when it comes up for renewal and we nod it through but the PL knock it back, you could argue that the PL are retrospectively changing a deal made within the rules at the time. I suspect that is where our damages claim comes from. PL have not approved any of our ‘associated’ deals yet.
Chelsea, Incidently, are complaining that delays by the PL are harming deals.
PS Villa considering legal action vs PL.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
If we strike a deal in 2020 for three years and when it comes up for renewal and we nod it through but the PL knock it back, you could argue that the PL are retrospectively changing a deal made within the rules at the time. I suspect that is where our damages claim comes from. PL have not approved any of our ‘associated’ deals yet.
Chelsea, Incidently, are complaining that delays by the PL are harming deals.
Click to expand...

All very true, but the three years have nothing to do with it. It could have been a ten year deal up for renewal this year. It doesn't mean they are applying the rule retrospectively. So we shouldn't be getting our knickers in a twist about retrospective "punishment" when all the consequences are prospective.

There is enough to complain about with what they are trying to do now (as you did above) without making the wrong points. It just weakens our arguments if we say they can go back three years. All imho.
 
manimanc said:
I emailed potato head Herbert and told him in no uncertain terms what a sell out he is, how immature his pieces are and how his racist employers seem to employ racist employees, also put a link of Mr Samuel's brilliantly written and balanced article.

Can you believe i got a near enough instant reply!!

It read like this.

"Ah yes, people like you.."...


Fuckin piss funny, emailed back asking if he needs help taking the hook out of his lip.

What a bellend.
Click to expand...
Those initial words were quite telling, weren't they?
He was very quick to 'other' you there. Almost as if it was a core part of who he is...
 
Elbow beards said:
Getting scary all this vitriol now. How many blues are out there now worried about wearing a City shirt cos of knob heads?
Click to expand...

Normally its not a problem but have had an increase in abit verbal. Mostly shouts of cheats, the occasional wanker !.
But this is thanet and its abit of a shit hole whit London dumping all its scum down here
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Fantastic article by Martin Samuel in the Times.
He gets it.

The sky won’t fall in even if Manchester City win their court case

www.thetimes.co.uk

Latest news & breaking headlines

The latest breaking UK, US, world, business and sport news from The Times and The Sunday Times. Go beyond today's headlines with in-depth analysis and comment.
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
Is there a way to read this without subscribing?
 
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