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

Cobwebcat said:
Yes agreed. Rival fans will still believe what they want but not much anyone can do about that.

Good to hear that with legal cases affecting 25% of the clubs already and the legal bill at 50 million and rising the clubs are starting to question what the point of it all is.

American owners are ruining our National sport. They look to dominate not with investment of their own but eliminating investment from other rival clubs. It’s a race to the bottom.
Click to expand...
City propose new player walkout song at the Etihad stadium
 
Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....
 
Grassland Blue said:
Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....
Click to expand...
Aren’t the legal costs shared amongst the PL’s member clubs?
 
bluenova said:
I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.
Click to expand...

Fair points, and it was the only issue anybody has ever brought up about City's ownership that I ever felt even a tinge of "guilt" about. But then I looked, on the one hand, at the history of why United and Liverpool enjoyed their periods of success, the advantages they had that no-one did anything about and, on the other hand, the steps taken to stop City, including a changed FFP at the outset, the constant innuendo openly and indirectly through the press and, yes, most lately the new APT rules, and I said fuck them.

No City fan should give them an inch of moral high ground. No other club is concerned by the future sustainability of the football pyramid. They are only concerned about how much money they can make or how little they need to invest in order to compete. Fuck the lot of them.

One last point. Super-rich owners are just the latest fad in football club ownership as a direct result of the greed of the PL and other clubs. Gone are the days of local businessmen owning successful clubs. Gone are the days of those owners being replaced by national businessmen. Gone are the days of those owners floating their clubs on the stock exchange. Gone are the days of those owners selling out to US hedge funds and being successful. If you want to be more successful than City today, you need better and better connected owners than City have. Good luck with that. But don't cry about it, you brought it on yourselves with your greed and short-sightedness.
 
Last edited:
meltonblue said:
The issue to me is the Newcastle deal should
never have been allowed, there was always going to have to be some form of APT rules as soon as it was.

Some could argue that applies to us too and the other court case ongoing might show that, but the key differentiator being we’re privately owned, albeit from a member of the ruling family of a state rather than the state itself.
Click to expand...

Tbf, as soon as Khaldoon and Pearce became involved, the private ownership argument, while it may be true, flew out of the window where income is concerned. That doesn't mean we can't use it as an argument against the idea that the club is state-owned, state-funded, state-sponsored or whatever the latest watered down version is, it clearly isn't, but we can't pretend the club isn't in a much stronger position with a lot more large company contacts than any other club is, with the exception of Newcastle, and we aren't far below them.

See my previous post for why, and why I don't care.
 
Last edited:
Grassland Blue said:
Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....
Click to expand...
Now that would be delicious.
 
Grassland Blue said:
Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....
Click to expand...
Don't bring a legal case against someone based on a bunch of dodgy hacked emails that have already been thrown out by one court then.

But it's not just us. Everton, Forest and a few others too, I think. Leicester?

What I heard was that they were putting aside 10 million for legal costs, and it's already at 45 million. They may figure that the first year will be expensive, but after that, it will act as a deterrent, and they won't need to bring any action. But I think it's just too easy to, through bad planning, accidentally break the rules. You can set a budget, but if you do shit on the pitch, or a player you were hoping to sell for huge money gets injured, or drops off a cliff in terms of form, you're screwed. What if West Ham agreed to sell Paqueta, but wanted to bring a replacement in first, and after bringing one in, all of that gambling stuff came out? That's why the whole idea of dealing with it after the fact is ridiculous. You can't have a deterrent against making mistakes.
 
halfcenturyup said:
No City fan should give them an inch of moral high ground. No other club is concerned by the future sustainability of the football pyramid. They are only concerned about how much money they can make or how little they need to invest in order to compete. Fuck the lot of them.
Click to expand...
I'm concerned about the football pyramid, and would happily vote (as if I have one) for anything that helped sustain it, even if it meant City and the other top clubs earning less money. But what I wouldn't vote for is protectionism for the top clubs disguised as concern for the football pyramid. FFP was always a con, which is why I've never had any issue with our club (or more recently, Chelsea, or anyone else) using whatever clever accounting tricks they can to get around it.
 
bluenova said:
I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.
Click to expand...

Yep point was it's always been who you know in big business and the difference is if a car company sponsor an American team god 150m it will be fine city get a company in there part of the world it won't be fine it would be assessed for fair value!
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Nice to see them finally seeing the light, but let's not pretend Everton haven't been key in this whole thing from the start. They were one of the original breakaway clubs, they were just too incompetent to actually take advantage of it when it happened.
Click to expand...

Keith *** cough *** Wyness. Cough, cough.
 
I hope City do win the APT case against the PL, but is it possible that the panel haven't concluded proceedings yet, and that is why the PL amended the agenda at Thursday's meeting?
 
Grassland Blue said:
Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....
Click to expand...

I think their real fear is they may have to spend £50m to fight the Rags only this time they could win.
 
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