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

OntarioBlue said:
It will be interesting to see what happens now. If a club like Brighton, for instance, has to take £375m of debt servicing on their books at say 8%, thats £30m a year in debt servicing costs. How can they sustain that ?
Click to expand...
@slbsn has said on twitter it won’t be an issue as owners will simply convert the loans to equity, but then why do the loans in the first place then?
 
Rammy Blue said:
Really? I thought it’s been said by many that it was only the amendments to the rules that we weren’t happy with and that we had no issue with APT as long as it was implemented fairly?
Click to expand...

It probably was just that but we challenged it across the board, a few of those challenges succeeded.

Thats all that was needed from City’s perspective though as they got the outcome wanted.
 
Revolver said:
The raging pessimist in me thinks City winning this case means that no club will ever again have to face a rigged competition like our club.

And in future we will thanked for standing up to the cartel

But however we will lose the “115 witch-hunt “

Hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...
One game at a time.
 
Rammy Blue said:
Devil’s advocate, can anyone explain where exactly the Prem have won on anything significant?
Click to expand...
An analogy that I think comes closest is the premier league dropping their car off for an MOT only for the mechanic to find a dead body in the boot.
The premier league are subsequently found guilty of murder, but are commending themselves for the car passing its MOT.

Stop me if I'm wrong here.
 
GaudinoMotors said:
They questioned the legality of the rules - and guess what....
Click to expand...

The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.

It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.

People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.
 
Rammy Blue said:
Really? I thought it’s been said by many that it was only the amendments to the rules that we weren’t happy with and that we had no issue with APT as long as it was implemented fairly?
Click to expand...

No we challenged the whole thing, it’s the first argument on the full decision.
 
spacecadet said:
We cannot rely on Spurs for anything, but have we now got 7 clubs to stop anymore of the cartel shit? 1 City 2 Newcastle 3 Villa 4 Chelsea 5 Soton 6 ? 7 ? Was really surprised at Fulham
Click to expand...
What this has shown is that it is the law which prevents the cartel from ruining anyone who stands in their way. The regulations governing the game have to be consistent with the law. For years now we have been treated to the nonsense that the governing bodies are only seeking to establish financial fair play, but today they have been shown to behave partially and unlawfully and deliberately so. It will be interesting now if an owner invests more than the PL allows and argues that FFP ignores that sponsorship deals are not as favourable to small clubs as "big" ones.
 
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