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

GortonBlue62 said:
Agree with everything you wrote but want to make a point about when you say he is not 'City oriented'.

I know a couple of older blues who completely buy the MSM bullshit and are of the opinion that City are guilty because there's no smoke without fire.

I spent a frustrating couple of hours before the cup final trying to explain to one of them why there's a good chance we are innocent. I patiently explained the UEFA case and CAS judgement and the circumstances around the PL charges, all to no avail.

I fear the media has done such a good job demonising us, that innocent as I believe us to be, much of the muck thrown at us will stick.
Click to expand...

Was that ever going to be different ?

This is a concerted besmirching of the club at the behest of the redshirt/yank consortium.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original APT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?
Click to expand...
At last someone gives a clear reply to a complicated issue rather than insulting. I do get it now thanks
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Appreciate everybody's efforts in trying to educate me. I get most of it, but I am still not seeing how this large disclosure is relevant to the 115 case, other than very obliquely. In fact, i would say it is irrelevant. It must just be me. Probably why accountants are always being screwed by lawyers :)
Click to expand...
Might it be linked to the non-cooperation and establishing that the reason for our behaviour and reluctance to share is we believe it to be a vexatious request and the result of partiality, which correspondence may validate?
 
ArdwickAlbert said:
Might it be linked to the non-cooperation and establishing that the reason for our behaviour and reluctance to share is we believe it to be a vexatious request and the result of partiality, which correspondence may validate?
Click to expand...

Maybe. But the club was told by the Appeals Court to comply with information requests, wasn't it? I suppose we will find out sooner or later. :)
 
citizen_maine said:
All 20 clubs abide by those rules, so if two clubs sort it out between them , the others have agreed to abide by it.
Let it go - nothing is going to come of it.
Click to expand...

I’ve let it go but I’m simply saying the club feels they’ve been victimised. I would much rather concentrate on the Stanley Park stadium costs.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
I'm always uneasy with clubs doing 'deals' like this.

Imagine if the dips had done something to a minor club which could have a major effect on other clubs and they took a couple of million pay-off.

Illegalities should be looked at by the Prem no matter if the clubs agree to settle.
Click to expand...
Bit like civil and criminal action
 
citizen_maine said:
All 20 clubs abide by those rules, so if two clubs sort it out between them , the others have agreed to abide by it.
Let it go - nothing is going to come of it.
Click to expand...
I would be astounded if the PL weren't notified at the time and possibly the other 18 members. It's definitely water under the bridge.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Appreciate everybody's efforts in trying to educate me. I get most of it, but I am still not seeing how this large disclosure is relevant to the 115 case, other than very obliquely. In fact, i would say it is irrelevant. It must just be me. Probably why accountants are always being screwed by lawyers :)
Click to expand...
We have no idea how large the disclosure is. And disclosure could be critical, say, in relation to knowledge of the matters at the time especially in respect of something like Fordham. Knowledge/consideration of the issue by the PL in 2012-2014 (say) would mean that the limitation period would likely apply and would therefore close off certain issues. This is just one example off the top of my head - there will be others where 2 way disclosure on issues is important. There will be lots of areas where 2 way or third party disclosure could be relevant.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Agree with everything you wrote but want to make a point about when you say he is not 'City oriented'.

I know a couple of older blues who completely buy the MSM bullshit and are of the opinion that City are guilty because there's no smoke without fire.

I spent a frustrating couple of hours before the cup final trying to explain to one of them why there's a good chance we are innocent. I patiently explained the UEFA case and CAS judgement and the circumstances around the PL charges, all to no avail.

I fear the media has done such a good job demonising us, that innocent as I believe us to be, much of the muck thrown at us will stick.
Click to expand...
Send them here, they’ll learn soon enough.
 
At a time when inward investment into the UK is on its arse, this stupid, vindictive, witch-hunt seems more stupid than ever. All because the cartel shithouses who let their stadiums turn to shit can’t stand their profits being hit by little City….

www.theguardian.com

Investment in UK has trailed other G7 countries since mid-1990s, IPPR says

Institute for Public Policy Research urges Labour and Conservatives to reverse planned cuts
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
I was away in Devon last week and have only just caught up with recent developments. I believe that the PL has been told it must produce all its emails and texts mentioning City since 2009. This would seem to suggest they are relevant to the "APT" case at least, but it is hard to see how they can be ignored in the "!!%" hearing. Projectriver makes an important point of obvious significance that such texts and emails have a connection with the limitation period on hearing charges with the PL dealing with a period of some 10 years in the case of their 115 charges. Petrusha makes a point of similar significance in that they may show that a number of clubs (and the FFP rules and APT regulations both passed with the required 2/3 majority)lobbied the PL to "stop City" with whatever rules were required. They may have received a sympathetic hearing and reply. If they raise fears that the PL is behaving not as an even handed governing body acting in the interests of the game but as a commercial rival vying with City and some other clubs for sponsorship deals (for example) then the PL case would indeed be weakened severely - holed beneath the water line in fact.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I was away in Devon last week and have only just caught up with recent developments. I believe that the PL has been told it must produce all its emails and texts mentioning City since 2009. This would seem to suggest they are relevant to the "APT" case at least, but it is hard to see how they can be ignored in the "!!%" hearing. Projectriver makes an important point of obvious significance that such texts and emails have a connection with the limitation period on hearing charges with the PL dealing with a period of some 10 years in the case of their 115 charges. Petrusha makes a point of similar significance in that they may show that a number of clubs (and the FFP rules and APT regulations both passed with the required 2/3 majority)lobbied the PL to "stop City" with whatever rules were required. They may have received a sympathetic hearing and reply. If they raise fears that the PL is behaving not as an even handed governing body acting in the interests of the game but as a commercial rival vying with City and some other clubs for sponsorship deals (for example) then the PL case would indeed be weakened severely - holed beneath the water line in fact.
Click to expand...
Gosh.
It’s almost like an independent regulator would be far more fair.
 
Blueeye said:
At last someone gives a clear reply to a complicated issue rather than insulting. I do get it now thanks
Click to expand...
That’s good.
Having got your head around that, what do you think of the fact that 2/3 of the league voted in these rules that in effect nobble us.
Rules that don’t seem to have any business benefits for the league in general and this majority seem to be more interested in stopping our gallop than actually supporting football.
They are almost being tyrannical in their dominant position, you could say. Not being equitable or perhaps more accurately, clubbing together not for the good of all. Too influenced by a cartel really.

Do you think an independent regulator would govern in the same manner?
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
That’s good.
Having got your head around that, what do you think of the fact that 2/3 of the league voted in these rules that in effect nobble us.
Rules that don’t seem to have any business benefits for the league in general and this majority seem to be more interested in stopping our gallop than actually supporting football.
They are almost being tyrannical in their dominant position, you could say. Not being equitable or perhaps more accurately, clubbing together not for the good of all. Too influenced by a cartel really.

Do you think an independent regulator would govern in the same manner?
Click to expand...
Kind of depends who appoints the regulator doesn't it?
 
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