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

mike1923 said:
We should raise a vote of no confidence in Masters. Ask the other clubs if they’re happy for him to keep spending their money on ridiculous legal fees for cases they keep losing because they don’t know their own rules and keep trying to bring in illegal ones
Click to expand...

Agreed. At some point the penny has to drop that in an effort to stop City and then Newcastle two other clubs have had points deducted, another club showed up the inadequacy of the rules as drafted and we now have a ruling that cites the latest APT rulings are illegal and that the PL is abusing its authority.

Additionally, the free ride other clubs were getting via shareholder funding has now been deemed unfair and discriminatory. Chuck in the millions spent on legal fees and it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of Masters stewardship.

To be fair it has been bleeding hilarious so I’ll give him that much.
 
Blue and true said:
I'm sure it's already been asked, but can someone help me out? Does this bear well for us in relation to the other charges?

Seems to me the Prem don't know their arse from their elbow and are just trying to damage us reputationally.
Click to expand...

Don't think so. Other than, as you say, the PL have a problem knowing their arse from their elbow, which bodes well.
 
domalino said:
We don’t even know how many sponsorships they rejected unlawfully. We know City had 3, it wouldn’t surprise me if the league-wide figure was upwards of 10? You’d imagine Newcastle would have a few for starters. Chelsea? Wolves?

Those clubs are all going to want compensation for those sponsorships, especially if City end up getting a big wedge awarded.

So the next PL meeting could get very spicy.
Click to expand...

The Etihad deal was up for renewal for another 10 years and its was for about £800million
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yep. City fans have said for years that a red cartel exists and we have been painted as absolute cranks for suggesting it. Todays ruling shows that plays were made behind the scenes by certain individuals and clubs, to protect their status by whatever means necessary, including the introduction of unlawful rules.

The media fallout will all be about City and what it means going forward but the bigger story for me is the collusion between the PL and certain clubs to stifle competition. Why are the PL pandering to and protecting certain members at the expense of other members? All PL clubs get an equal share but seemingly some shares are more equal than others.
 
DeepBlueSea said:
I’m an Ipswich fan, so I’ve got no particular horse in this race. But from that neutral perspective, it’s so damn good to see fans of the ‘big’ clubs trying desperately to have the moral high ground. They tried to fix the system, to make sure that no one else could *ever* legally match their financial firepower. That’s all they cared about. Being on top and STAYING on top in perpetuity. Feck everyone else. All this ridiculous moralising, pretending to care about principles of law, when it’s really about not letting anyone else join your elite club. It’s transparent, and I hope the cards continue to fall in City’s favour with this legal action.
Click to expand...
Good post mate,carry on.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I think you are missing the point.

City didn't have a problem with the original rules. The club even voted for them in principle and didn't vote against them in 2021. It was the 2023 rules that led to the tribunal.

When it came to making the claim, of course the club aimed high against the original rules as well as the new rules. Why not? You never know. It's the equivalent of the 115 charges. I doubt the club really thought they could throw out all the rules, but they seem to have had success on the new rules they voted against and on the deals that were delayed. Which is a win for the club and a problem for the PL.

The PL can claim that as a victory if they want, but it is hugely embarrassing for them to have their legal opinion, that was paraded around all the clubs, reversed on appeal on any issue at all. And not for the first time.
Click to expand...

I’m not missing any point, a poster asked if the PL actually won anything at all and the answer is yes.

You can claim the club didn’t have a problem with the original APT rules, that doesn’t change the fact they just spent a lot of time and money trying to get them thrown out, the rules were on the line and we were unsuccessful, which is a win for the PL.

It might not be something the club are devastated about, but it’s ridiculous to claim that winning an argument at arbitration isn’t a win when the consequences of losing would have been huge.

They’re entitled to celebrate that because they’d be absolutely fucked if we’d won.
 
It's not unusual for companies in breech of competition law to be fined, in the UK it's 10% of your income. If that does happen, and furthermore legal costs and even city sueing for loss of income is on the cards, where is all that money coming from?

I think we've all seen Masters is a dead man walking for some time, certainly City did when we made those comments about his understudy being so gracious to attend our premier league winners crowning last season.

The endgame here is not to dispose of all rules, nor to open up a free for all. It's to bring a fairness and transparency of a legally sound framework for each member club to adhere to, even if they'd rather be kept blindfolded, and to remove the diseased self-appointed aristocracy of the English game to prevent them continuing to shape the game to their benefit.

If the premier league is the glass house.....
 
west didsblue said:
I read it as we provided a whole lot of reasons why we believed the rules were unlawful. The fact that the panel agreed with some of the reasons means the rules are unlawful. The fact they didn’t agree with every reason doesn’t make the rules a bit lawful. They’re unlawful full stop.

It’s like saying a disallowed goal wasn’t offside but it was only disallowed because of a foul on the keeper. It doesn’t make it a part goal.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they are either illegal or not.
 
ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN said:
It points that the Premier league are not to be believed in all that they do

Reputation is hanging by a thread if any and why would anyone believe them
Click to expand...
That Newcastle evidence and the suggestion from Tolmie there are also damning emails could damage the PL's reputation even more. It is obvious they have been acting in bad faith all along.
 
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