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

[Coatigan]

That’s what I thought.
Didn’t CAS say we weren't related and also that it was FMV or am I getting that wrong.

Yes, it wasn't 'related'. But in February they brought in a further term 'associated'. This is the change that City are challenging, not the previous FMV rules.

 

[SilverFox2]

They are pretty serious individuals though, the sort that would be able to sit at CAS. So I think we are safe :)

Thanks for posting the details earlier.
Seems unlikely they can ignore the City side of things so let's hope the PL have broken their own rules one way or another.

 

[searsleftpeg]

Day three of my pursuit to fight back on Facebook. Two main things.
Dipper boy has not come back since I outed him on “all the serious charges were time barred.”
But this one is potentially my all time favourite.

“City’s chairman already owns one country and now he’s trying to take over the UK”

The time barred accusation always shows what the real agenda is. As we were not guilty of any charges (except non cooperation,why would we?)Why do all the sheep assume we are guilty of the time barred one's. Especially when it wasn't our fault it went out of time.

 

[Gremlin]

Played some good stuff, created some good chances, look a bit vulnerable on the counter.

Does Pannick track back?

 

[remember arthur mann]

What does he mean by Abu Dhabi's charmless reign? It doesn't make any sense given that City are owned by Sheikh Mansour (75pc) and US investors Silver Lake (25pc). Is he suggesting that all of Abu Dhabi is charmless, the entire population, every single person. Why would he say something like that? Is it because, as Alf Garnett used to say: "They are all the same aren't they"?

Charmless? charmless? has the cnut never watched Khaldoon.

 

[burning blue soul]

In fairness I did used to spray paint on walls during 60's and 70's "CITY RULE OK"

Now you can spray "CITY RULE UK" :)

 

[fierydan]

Sanity from Samuel. Sadly, such succinct sensibility is so seldom seen.

sounds like the snake in Jungle Book

 

[dublinblue12]

It's an old one but Souness sums it all up

 

[GaslightAnthem]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

Hope you’re doing alright pal

 

[hammocity]

there not arguing at present about FMV but how money was paid and by whom

That's in the "115" charges rap, nothing to do with this current challenge, the PL are saying our sponsors are "related parties" and as such can be scrutinised by the PL and the value can be reduced. We're saying that's illegal under competitiveness rules.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

I think the mods have missed a trick by not opening a match day thread on it.

"Fucking best lawyers in the world...Lionel Hutz could do better"

"FFS."

"We're getting relegated to the Manchester seniors league aren't we?"

 

[adrianr]

Was Stefans latest appearance on TS posted? He makes me warm and fuzzy.

 

[burning blue soul]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

The arbitrators have said we haven't done anything wrong and we can go live on an island somewhere

 

[spinney]

That's in the "115" charges rap, nothing to do with this current challenge, the PL are saying our sponsors are "related parties" and as such can be scrutinised by the PL and the value can be reduced. We're saying that's illegal under competitiveness rules.

Associated parties - which is legally undefined

Related parties is already defined legally

 

[abu13]

A thought occured to me today that I hadn't even considered before, lets say that the PL bring in the anchoring rule where the maximum a club can spend is say £650 million. How does that affect associated rules and fair market value?

If we as a club get to a point where we bring in say £800 million and agree to the cap at £650 million then surely the additional money we are unable to spend will go to the owners as a return on their investment.

So in effect the PL are trying to push rules that will limit what a business can earn regardless of if they can spend it. I cant quite understand how that could be legal.

 

[bridgeno1]

The arbitrators have said we haven't done anything wrong and we can go live on an island somewhere

Plus the Rags have to play in skins and underpants for the next 5 matches and the Dippers have to replace YNWA with Blue Moon.

Heck of a legal team is all I'll say!

 

[bennyboy]

It's an old one but Souness sums it all up

Works with Jordan now.Big change in him.

 

[spinney]

A thought occured to me today that I hadn't even considered before, lets say that the PL bring in the anchoring rule where the maximum a club can spend is say £650 million. How does that affect associated rules and fair market value?

If we as a club get to a point where we bring in say £800 million and agree to the cap at £650 million then surely the additional money we are unable to spend will go to the owners as a return on their investment.

So in effect the PL are trying to push rules that will limit what a business can earn regardless of if they can spend it. I cant quite understand how that could be legal.

Correct - talk about mission creep !


They truly are making it up as they go along

 

[hammocity]

Associated parties - which is legally undefined

Related parties is already defined legally

Yes but we're challenging the fact that our sponsors are related as the club is owned by the Sheikh, 80% and Silverlake, 19% with a 1% stake from China.

The Associated parties rule the PL are trying to implicate is the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[Norman kneejerk]

I think our strong suit in this is to focus on specific areas where we are being potentially stuffed rather than getting into the broad brush you signed up adhere to the democratic vote.