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

Wretched Vengeance said:
View attachment 134321View attachment 134322View attachment 134323

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

The Tyson gif was my first post when the news of us taking these cunts to court first broke.
 
You have to remember that these low life so called journalists have for years been pedalling their lies (Hopes, fantasies etc etc) and cannot now admit the unthinkable and therefore disappoint the baying pack without losing face.

I have just spent the last couple of days visiting Pearl Harbour and it does remind me of the quote from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto about waking up a sleeping giant when it comes to our legal battles with the Premiership and the Cartel.

Tora Tora Tora !!
 
mattcity5 said:
That's a big thing. Arsenal and Brighton mostly from what I read!

It'd explain why Brighton voted with them, and why Arsenals CEO was an arse wipe at the end of their match with us.
Click to expand...
We’ve not heard much from Brighton fan football finance bell end Kieran McGuire. I’m glad the two faced, sneering, smug ****’s club will bear the brunt of the shareholder loans rule change. Feel free to email him at questions@priceoffootball.com to share your disappointment with him.
 
Absolute fucking snakes in the media, brazenly claiming a draw between us and the PL.

The FACTS are that parts of APT is unlawful and there is an EMERGENCY meeting taking place next week to sort this SHITSHOW out.

The FACT that we made
ANYTHING stick shows the PL up for the corrupt good for nothing cunts that they are.

We won you UTTER FUCKWITS.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Haven't broken rules that were illegal at the time. Don't be so confident this won't have to be applied retroactively.
Click to expand...

I am pretty confident it won't be applied retrospectively. Don't see how it possibly could be.
 
Blu1 said:
Have we won or not as the media are not really being clear & prem league seem to think we haven’t won
Click to expand...
Our defeat was so bad the PL have called an emergency meeting to celebrate it...

One thing that made me chuckle in the judgment pdf was that after all the social media crap about our expensive lawyers the PL chose to ignore the advice of their own no doubt expensive KC and remove the word "evidently" from the clause relating to sponsorships being in excess of FMV, consequently making the amended APT rules in breach of competition law in the view of the panel.

This point was also recognised in the advice of Helen Davies KC: “The standard of ‘evidently in excess of FMV’ should ensure that it is only obviously abusive transactions that are prevented and thus that there is no unintended collateral adverse effect on competition.”
 
Gone for a Burton said:
Take the accounts of all PL clubs back to when FFP, PSR & ATP were introduced.

Apply to same scrutiny to them as has been applied to City over the same period and include the impact/benefit of shareholder loans for the relevant period.

Not sure how penalties should/could be applied ( ideas please) because multiple clubs will fail the rules.

Set the record straight....

"Once and for all" !!
Click to expand...
The Most Reliable Banks in the Cayman Islands-Eternity Law International


Some very interesting accounts here I would imagine
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
I was reading the reaction on a Newcastle forum and they were saying, based on the size of the redaction, it was someone with a short name - no more than 10 letters.

Coinicidentally, the Arsenal vice chair who didn't shake Khaldoon's hand is called Tim Lewis.

So my money is on him and Arsenal.
Click to expand...
I thought it wasstated in the martin samuel piece who it was.
 
CC1 said:
BBC Look North 22.35 just announced that Manchester City have lost their case against the PL re APT. One line then on to next story

Unbelievable. No other comments. Obviously not read the last page of the panels report on the case ???
Click to expand...
More evidence that the BBC is not fit for purpose.
 
From the BBC, tucked away down near the bottom of their article.

However, on page 163, it outlines that declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages can be sought. This could be 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.

Of even greater issue are the comments on page 164, which point out a number of the Premier League's rules are unlawful as they don't include shareholder loans. It is this which forms the basis of City saying the Premier League has "violated UK competition law".

So we can claim relief and damages not the PL, and they allowed shareholder loans which makes their rules unlawful.

Think that shows we got what we came for.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Again true. But it's most likely in that case there will be some "wins" and some "losses" for both parties, the same as in this one. Then we can all fight over who "won" again :)
Click to expand...
I look at it like this.
A builder wants to build 100 houses. He knows he will get opposition from the locals and therefore the planners. He therefore submits planning for 150 houses. Everyone kicks up, there is an inquiry and he's told he can only build.....100 houses. :-)

City knew what they had to win, threw in more stuff and the inquiry said we'd failed in various aspects but we were correct and could build a 100 houses. OK I think I got mixed up at the end but you get my drift. We won the bits we wanted to win.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Anyone expecting any honesty or integrity from the press in reporting the findings in this judgment hasn’t being paying much attention to how the CAS verdict has been widely reported.
Click to expand...
According to talk shites Manchester correspondent,the reason we won was because we have the most money,if we didn’t have all this money we wouldn’t have won all the league titles or have the best manager.funny how it’s changed now from the 60’s when littlewoods pools bank rolled the dippers,in the 80’s when the rags could outspend every other club,
 
lancs blue said:
Our defeat was so bad the PL have called an emergency meeting to celebrate it...

One thing that made me chuckle in the judgment pdf was that after all the social media crap about our expensive lawyers the PL chose to ignore the advice of their own no doubt expensive KC and remove the word "evidently" from the clause relating to sponsorships being in excess of FMV, consequently making the amended APT rules in breach of competition law in the view of the panel.

This point was also recognised in the advice of Helen Davies KC: “The standard of ‘evidently in excess of FMV’ should ensure that it is only obviously abusive transactions that are prevented and thus that there is no unintended collateral adverse effect on competition.”
Click to expand...
Going against the advice of a silk only tends to happen when emotion and sentiment overcome logic and reason. It’s a conscious decision to ignore the express legal opinion of someone you are paying huge sums of money to advise you. There has to be a much wider underlying motive to act in this way. No other logical conclusion can be drawn.

It also further underlines the PL’s fundamental gross incompetence.
 
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