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

M Gaudino said:
this is hilaruous.

every paper, talksport and other media outlet covering it as a seismic win for city and the bbc with a vanilla no opinion telling of the facts.

fuck you Dan Roan and Phil Mcnulty
Click to expand...
What do u expect ?the bbc still can bring them selves to say Hamas is a terror organisation!
 
SebastianBlue said:
I am getting these shirts printed in all sizes for my pop up City apparel shop ahead of the Wolves game. ;-)
IMG-1394.jpg
Click to expand...
Joking aside Seb, I'd buy one! I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes.
 
Ric said:
Presumably that clubs can’t take the piss by signing ludicrous sponsorships, and the PL can’t take the piss by trying to block reasonable deals.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, for the love of God, why the PL doesn't just adopt the same financial rules as UEFA. The top seven clubs have to comply with them anyway. Even do away with FFP for clubs not in Europe.

Why not do something simple instead of something mind-bogglingly complicated (and crazy expensive).

The award says the PL has had to beef up its APT team to handle the workload and has even had to pay Nielsen more to beef up their team as well? Is it all worth it?
 
bridgeno1 said:
Yes but it will be applied differently by the Panel as there won't be any time-barring in place.
Click to expand...
Dear god. Read the fucking CAS verdict.

There is no time barring.
The ‘time barred’ stuff couldn’t be adjudicated on by CAS, but they said they’d be on city’s side even if it wasn’t. That’s doubly damning - going out of their way to make a point about ‘time barring’ being irrelevant in a ruling they didn’t need to comment on.

And as per your earlier comment about ‘disguised owner investment’ - read the fucking CAS ruling. ‘No evidence’ was CAS verdict, not once, not twice but iirc 11 times.

IIRC I’ve already (months ago) called you out and said ‘read the CAS verdict’. You seem incapable of doing the basics of reading facts, and just spout hopes and opinions.

You are a wum
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think upon a little reflection the extent of City’s victory depends on the club’s objectives. If it was to destroy APT (which I highly doubt) then it’s correct to say it’s somewhat limited, although still material. If it was to recalibrate the rules (which I expect it was) then the success would have to be, at the very least, characterised as highly successful.

However, what cannot be open to debate is the extent of the PL’s defeat. A de facto public authority having a finding that its rules were unlawful, as was the way they were applied, is huge. As are the findings of procedural irregularity and unfairness.

To fail to understand this is to fail to appreciate the function of an authority such as this, the laws of natural justice and the burden and standard of proof required to establish such findings.

This following from the Leicester shambles further underlines this organisation is not even close to being fit to oversee a multi-billion pound industry that has attained huge strategic and commercial importance to the UK.

That should be the story, but instead all we have is mental gymnastics from the media about how neither side won - when one of them manifestly lost.
Click to expand...
As I'm trying to be cool headed and rational about this I'd describe the PL as runners up or second winners....
 
RobinHood said:
Let them report who pays compensation to who. That'll show the real winner.
Click to expand...


Published
16 September

Could Man City claim damages?
Simon Stone, BBC Sport chief football news reporter
Manchester City could be eligible to claim for damages on earnings lost as a result of the tribunal's findings.
On page 163, it outlines 'declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages' can be sought.
This, potentially is a financial problem for the Premier League depending on whether City pursue a claim – which they have indicated they will - and what the size of it is.
 
bridgeno1 said:
Yeah but it isn't retrospectively applied. So they'll have to factor in an extra £20m for the loans or so however in reality what you'll see is a massive Walmart sponsorship deal at whatever value the Kroenkes can get away with so I don't think it affects Arsenal in reality as that will just replace the shareholder loans. It's the same money basically.

Smaller clubs without super wealthy owners who own other massive companies may feel it more though.
Click to expand...
The Premier League has been retrospectively applying rules in the form of City's sanctions for 18 months now.

Why shouldn't they do the same against Arsenal?
 
halfcenturyup said:
If seven clubs vote down any changes, what do the PL do?

Remember, the question was why Everton and Chelsea would vote with City now, if they are going to be hurt by interest on their loans.

What they do is vote down any rule including shareholder loans in APT. The PL can't make the rules "legal" without a 2/3 majority so they would have to scrap APT rules in their entirety or run with rules found to be anti-competitive. Bye bye APT.

Tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...
As I say I don’t think 7 clubs will vote the PL down indeed the panel’s verdict probably gives the PL a clear line of sight in terms of how an independent panel will view matters going forward
I don’t like using the phrase red herrings in relation to owners loans but sorry I think this is being a little overstated in terms of this aspect of the ruling. One way or another the owners will work round this my guess re Chelsea this was as much to do with their plans going forward in terms of associated sponsorship or more likely something to do with the multi club plans concerns re a sum is nothing more than a sum that will increase the costs for PSR but simply won’t see the owners receiving any income
 
Rammy Blue said:
Devil’s advocate, can anyone explain where exactly the Prem have won on anything significant?
Click to expand...

As far as I see it, the rules we didn’t challenge haven’t changed.
The arbitrator said there is a need for some sort RP restrictions. Which is something we haven’t challenged.
 
As someone who is just catching up..

Am I correct to summarise - that the APT rules need to be voted back through (with a majority) to be legally implemented, but in doing so they have to include share holder loans?

If so the 9 clubs with shareholders loans will likely be reassessed? So basically this won't be voted back in, unless there is an agreement that prior loans are excluded?
 
bridgeno1 said:
Yes but it will be applied differently by the Panel as there won't be any time-barring in place.
Click to expand...

It’s clear you know absolutely nothing about the case and are basing your views on social media comments and red top commentary.

Maybe you should stick to the latte army thread for your shitty little club in the general football forum?
 
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