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

malg said:
So, City journos say we won and the others say we only won on a couple of points.

FFS ....
Click to expand...
Haven't read the whole thing, but it seems like we won on all the issues (haven't seen one we lost on yet?) - we lost some of the arguments we made in relation to those issues, but I don't think City argued that they didn't want any rules (it doesn't benefit them at this point) - just that the rules as implemented were illegal.

I think what happened was something like (making these numbers up) we made 10 arguments as to why on each point, and lost on 5 of them, but we only needed 1. Something like that. The overall conclusion seems to be, and I apologize for the legal speak, get fucked Premier League.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
The BBC masquerade as impartial and yet they have fabricated a completely different version of events to every other media outlet. Serious questions need to be raised as to who is controlling the sports department
Click to expand...
It’s the bbc mate , they have no morals about anything,they’re like something out of Orwell’s 1984
 
Stoned Rose said:
Think it’s fair to say Stefan isn’t the oracle some think he to be.

A very good poster and I’m not knocking him at all but he isn’t the all seeing eye.
Click to expand...

Come on, he's analyses what he see's. The problem is it's hard to analyse things you can't see. There was very very little information coming out other than we've won some bits from one journo and also a rule was dropped at a PL meeting. That's it, that's all we had to work with, so it made it virtually impossible to say anything about the judgement
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Come on, he's analyses what he see's. The problem is it's hard to analyse things you can't see. There was very very little information coming out other than we've won some bits for one journo and also a rule was dropped at a PL meeting. That's it, that's all we had to work with, so it made it virtually impossible to say anything about the judgement
Click to expand...
That’s also a very good point. It’s much harder giving a reliable legal view if you aren’t in full view of the facts.

The only way to avoid it in those circumstances would be not give any view at all, which would have made this and the other thread far less absorbing.
 
SebastianBlue said:
The BBC have signalled in various ways recently that they have taken a very anti-City stance, so I am not really surprised.

But it is still shocking when considered against their mandate as a supposed guardian of public trust.
Click to expand...
They should apply that fact checking/verifying department to the sports section.
 
City Raider said:
I think it’s obvious the club tipped off some of the media when the ruling was released in Sept. The prem wanted time to get their ducks in a row, and we didn’t just sit and wait. No way Samuels, and others in media have drafted that article so quickly following the official publication.
Click to expand...
And probably why that slaphead CEO at Arsenal pissed off up the steps of the corporate section when Stones slammed in the equaliser
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Come on, he's analyses what he see's. The problem is it's hard to analyse things you can't see. There was very very little information coming out other than we've won some bits for one journo and also a rule was dropped at a PL meeting. That's it, that's all we had to work with, so it made it virtually impossible to say anything about the judgement
Click to expand...
He chose to quote tariq panja while also saying on talksport that he thought we wouldnt win, clearly an intelligent and well informed man but the sources you use and the company you keep goes along way.
 
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