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

Go to bournemouth and spend 10 minutes there and ull have plenty
It’s really gone downhill in the last decade or so, Shocked at the number of homeless there last time I went. You expect it from many seaside towns, I get that, but Bournemouth is not one where I’d expect to see such sights in such quantity.
 
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

I will stick up for him here

He isnt a WUM

Just a typical headed paper no nothing patronising tarquin full of self importance and bollox
 
It’s really gone downhill in the last decade or so, Shocked at the number of homeless there last time I went. You expect it from many seaside towns, I get that, but Bournemouth is not one where I’d expect to see such sights in such quantity.
Its a none sustainable economy but the housing market and local businesses have not caught up with reality yet
 
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?
I think there could be a carve up. City don't necessarily want zero regulation in this area, but they want it to be fair and non-discriminatory (against us). To be honest, I'm not even sure they'd care it was unlawful - as long as it doesn't get challenged they could pass something that all the clubs are happy with - the PL messed up here by picking a fight with the one club that had a) the balls and b) the money to take it all the way.
 
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?
That could well be the case. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Yes but it will be applied differently by the Panel as there won't be any time-barring in place.
Unless it’s proven to be fraud then according to English Law which the PL state they are under then it’s 6 years sunshine I would expect City to not use that as they have irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing Unlike Arsenal who have been cheating
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top