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

Metal Biker said:
Stop. Quoting. Tariq. Fucking. Panja.

Can we please only share information that is credible and not the diseased thoughts of a Twitter journeyman.
Click to expand...

The man who bleated on about 'Sportswashing' for years, managed to secure a 1 hour interview with Mbappe for the New York Times whilst PSG were at peak popularity and didn't ask a single question about Qatar.

Numerous cartel club fans berated him as to why he didn't ask anything on Qatar and his excuse was 'I ran out of time'.

Tells you all you need to know about Tariq. Fucking. Panja!
 
halfcenturyup said:
A new rule book was published after the February vote.

Edit: just to be clear, that is a second rule book for 23/24 with the new APT rules in it.

The 24/25 rule book had the same APT rules as the second 23/24 rule book.
Click to expand...
Thank you, you do not know know just how much this has been rattling around in my head.
So this news may be an indication that the PL want to dump, but the proof of the pudding is still the change of the rule book.
The first thing i would do in this situation is stop all usage and stop miss use that could come back and bite me ie access to the data base, until all outcomes have been reached.
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
I may have phrased that a bit wrong.

I don't really care where its coming from but i still agree the idea on having some rules from Etihad or similar sponsoring the left sock of every player for a billion quid a season etc. There's should be a middle ground in there that doesn't fuck everything up imo.

I also get the 'well fuck em' side as well, coz why not.
Click to expand...

There are other rules in place to prevent clubs entering into crazy contracts on anything other than arm's length. These APT rules are completely unnecessary in reality, especially as there has never been a case of sponsorship that has been so out of line with fmv that it raised eyebrows (the nearest possibly being the original Etihad contract but that later turned out to be good value).
 
halfcenturyup said:
There are other rules in place to prevent clubs entering into crazy contracts on anything other than arm's length. These APT rules are completely unnecessary in reality, especially as there has never been a case of sponsorship that has been so out of line with fmv that it raised eyebrows (the nearest possibly being the original Etihad contract but that later turned out to be good value).
Click to expand...
The only recent sponsorship that was so out of line was Chevrolet with Man United!!!!
 
Hopefully we are pressing for damages for rules that were brought in purposely to stifle us

A lot of PL clubs are going to be pissed their revenues are being spent on the mistakes made by Masters to ingratiate himself with his Cartel Chums once they see the PL clawing back legal rebates from the central pot.
 
BLUE THUNDER said:
I don't buy this "hasn't been discussed" rubbish.
If the PL had a victory of any significance they or their leaking parasites (Arsenhole) would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Click to expand...
City is all they ever discuss.

A meeting with premier league clubs but nothing on city lol. Sky can do one, lying pricks.
 
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