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

[willipp]

Anyone would think they have just got a new owner and dream of him pumping hundreds of millions into the club to make it great again!!

Just shows how little the likes of newcastle and everton fans really know about our cases. They seem to think a City win in this case opens the door to unlimited sponsorship investment.

That simply isn't the case and in relation to them, it actually makes very little difference i would imagine as the existing RTP and FMV rules will simply manage that.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

But let’s not forget the Rags & Arsenal know how to use politics to influence decisions. Both have had Keir Starmer sat in the stands for the last month & will have used those opportunities for lobbying.

So have we.

 

[brazilians hurt]

Is this the start of the slow drip into the mainstream that the premier league are going to let Manchester City "get away with it" for the good of the league itself...still painting City as the bad guys who cheated, but the pl simply couldnt afford to prove it?

Or maybe it's just the ramblings of two barely coherent racist BBC goons?

There is no way Khaldoon will agree to a technical settlement based on unsustainable costs being incurred by the PL, it would do nothing to allay the malicious campaign orchestrated against the club by the red puppets in what passses as the media in the UK. He warned them in advance of the proceedings. In my opinion if we have irrefutable evidence of our innocence and he has Masters, the PL & therefore the American cartel by the throat he will not settle in fact he will double down so the Yanks have to bail the PL out which is more than fair given they started this.

 

[johnny crossan]

So have we.

As our national broadcaster friends were quick and very keen to point out. Top of the tree apparently (if you don't count the PL, FA, & EPL of course)

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

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.

Nailed it. My feelings exactly

 

[SilverFox2]

Does this affect the 115 case though?? Stefan was saying on talksport the other day that this case is totally unrelated to the 115 case and it will have no bearing on it,

But something tells me we were advised off our legal team to do this because they must see something in it to help us towards the 115 case?

They are certainly separate issues but I think it's the other way round and it was the PL that realized their 115 case was propaganda and tried to sneak in amendments to its other financial rules.

I suppose it's only related in that we appear to have had a fair panel hearing rather than needing appeal to win like Leicester. This seems to point to a fair panel in the 115 case.

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Spot on. Fuck all those clubs. They started this shit back in the 80s when they carved up the first set of live TV rights where virtually every week we had one of the so-called “Big Five” being broadcast live, or worse still, two of the Big Five playing each other. Not to mention those same clubs carving up the way that gate receipts were distributed.

Of course, as time went on one of those five clubs - Everton - fell down the pecking order to the extent that they’re no longer classed as one of the present day Big Six, but the other 4 of the 1980s Big Five line-up are all still there acting like cunts.

These clubs can moan as much as they want about the people who run our club having better access to bigger global companies and potentially better sponsorship deals than them but I couldn’t give 2 shits. They still have their own business contacts to negotiate mates rates deals, as evidenced by United and Chevrolet (which ended with the Chevrolet guy who brokered it getting sacked - nothing to see here, honest), and Liverpool’s scrawny-necked Boston-based **** of an owner signing a kit deal with a Boston-based supplier. What was the losing bid Mr Henry?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm feeling totally out of the loop but why was there a vote in the first case regarding amendments to the APT rules, given our (presumably) ongoing case against the PL?

Good question.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

As our national broadcaster friends were quick and very keen to point out. Top of the tree apparently (if you don't count the PL, FA, & EPL of course)

And what an absolute fuss over nothing that is. I did note that Liverpool have given the most away but, if you remove the tickets for Taylor Swift paid for by the CEO, we are ‘the worst’.
That being said, I really don’t care who has a bit of hospitality, especially given the security implications.

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Spot on. Fuck all those clubs. They started this shit back in the 80s when they carved up the first set of live TV rights where virtually every week we had one of the so-called “Big Five” being broadcast live, or worse still, two of the Big Five playing each other. Not to mention those same clubs carving up the way that gate receipts were distributed.

Of course, as time went on one of those five clubs - Everton - fell down the pecking order to the extent that they’re no longer classed as one of the present day Big Six, but the other 4 of the 1980s Big Five line-up are all still there acting like cunts.

These clubs can moan as much as they want about the people who run our club having better access to bigger global companies and potentially better sponsorship deals than them but I couldn’t give 2 shits. They still have their own business contacts to negotiate mates rates deals, as evidenced by United and Chevrolet (which ended with the Chevrolet guy who brokered it getting sacked - nothing to see here, honest), and Liverpool’s scrawny-necked Boston-based **** of an owner signing a kit deal with a Boston-based supplier. What was the losing bid Mr Henry?

Very well put

 

[Gordyola]

We don't brag about our history mate!

we laugh about the the 90's with our kids! ha

It makes it look like what ever fan assumes that City were “invented”’by Mansour and maybe it’s time we did brag and personally I don’t laugh about the Swales era which nearly cost us our wonderful club

 

[BlueRockape]

It makes it look like what ever fan assumes that City were “invented”’by Mansour and maybe it’s time we did brag and personally I don’t laugh about the Swales era which nearly cost us our wonderful club

When I look back to those dark days it's an absolute dream to where we are now in fact unbelievable

 

[give it to gordon]

When I look back to those dark days it's an absolute dream to where we are now in fact unbelievable

It's been one hell of a journey :)

 

[BlueRockape]

It's been one hell of a journey :)

It certainly has and I can say hand on heart it ain't been easy but I have loved every single minute

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.....

It’s incredibly unlikely the PL will be running out of money, mate.

It’s the media laying the groundwork to use it as an excuse for when we slap them.

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

Anyone shitting on the pitch should be thoroughly investigated imo.

 

[standupifyouhatemanu]

Yep we have no history

 

[Stoned Rose]

Spot on. Fuck all those clubs. They started this shit back in the 80s when they carved up the first set of live TV rights where virtually every week we had one of the so-called “Big Five” being broadcast live, or worse still, two of the Big Five playing each other. Not to mention those same clubs carving up the way that gate receipts were distributed.

Of course, as time went on one of those five clubs - Everton - fell down the pecking order to the extent that they’re no longer classed as one of the present day Big Six, but the other 4 of the 1980s Big Five line-up are all still there acting like cunts.

These clubs can moan as much as they want about the people who run our club having better access to bigger global companies and potentially better sponsorship deals than them but I couldn’t give 2 shits. They still have their own business contacts to negotiate mates rates deals, as evidenced by United and Chevrolet (which ended with the Chevrolet guy who brokered it getting sacked - nothing to see here, honest), and Liverpool’s scrawny-necked Boston-based **** of an owner signing a kit deal with a Boston-based supplier. What was the losing bid Mr Henry?

It’s the Big 11 these days mate.

 

[paulchapo]

When I look back to those dark days it's an absolute dream to where we are now in fact unbelievable

The thing I remember about those days is we always had hope. In spite of what the Johnny come lately online cretins say we were always a big club, with a proud history and a large loyal fanbase. No.matter how low we sunk deep in our hearts we knew we'd bounce back.

My two lowest points were the Pearce era and when I realised that without a big money takeover we were just going to remain a mid table run of the mill club,that might, if we were extremely lucky, win the odd league cup. The top six were as good as the same every year and the European money ensured they stayed there. Nobody and I mean nobody, was crying it wasn't fair back then and we needed new rules to make it fairer. They didn't give a fuck until we became a threat.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

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.....

Maybe we could ask the Premier League how they’re funding the case. See if they cooperate. If they didn’t have sufficient funds perhaps Masters fails the fit and proper test?