PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

paulchapo said:
Everybody gives them a wide berth wherever they're spotted. It's unfortunate if you're stuck somewhere you can't escape them, like a plane. They always appear to travel mob handed and their "Humour" is just them attempting to take the piss out anybody who isn't a scouser.
Click to expand...
Anybody who tells you " We are dead funny, us...or We have the best sense of humour, us" are ckearly none of the above.. The best humour often comes with a healthy slice of self deprication.. a lot of scousers genuinely struggle with this aspect of life. Making many of them very "unfunny"
 
halfcenturyup said:
You say that, but even with the "coincidence" of the timing and the Newcastle correspondence, the panel didn't find that the new rules were aimed at a particular group of clubs, largely iirc because a PL lawyer testified that the rules were in consideration for a long time and weren't targeted at Newcastle.

I think if there is any connection to the 115 case at all it is the confirmation, yet again, that witness evidence trumps circumstantial evidence. That can only be good for the club on the 115 case.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But City have spent four years gathering evidence on the corrupt relationships between the PL leadership and some club directors. That Newcastle email is the tip of a very large iceberg. City know what has been going on and so do a lot of very senior politicians who are introducing independent regulation. The game is up.
 
mexico1970 said:
"The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position. The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

"The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans. As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

"The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner. The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules."



This says it all doesn't it?

If you read the BBC's take on it they'd have us believe that we are as guilty as the day is long.

Tick Tock as their brand goes down the shitter because they couldn't leave well alone.

AA1rPNNZ.img


The Premier League are set to have to amend or dump the system entirely following the verdict (chief executive Richard Masters pictured)
Click to expand...
No matter how much people at the BBC try to distort the truth they can’t get away from those comments made by three independent Judges.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You say that, but even with the "coincidence" of the timing and the Newcastle correspondence, the panel didn't find that the new rules were aimed at a particular group of clubs, largely iirc because a PL lawyer testified that the rules were in consideration for a long time and weren't targeted at Newcastle.

I think if there is any connection to the 115 case at all it is the confirmation, yet again, that witness evidence trumps circumstantial evidence. That can only be good for the club on the 115 case.
Click to expand...
True but it was also noted that emails specifically mentioned gulf state clubs but ommitted to mention american owned clubs which in itself is damning
 
It really is interesting reading the meltdown from rival fans on this.
If they don’t agree with a journalist- they must be on Abu Dhabi’s payroll
If they do agree - it’s all I knew you were on the right side, I’ve always liked your work
It’s amazing how people’s brains work when the facts stare them in the face.
It’s a no wonder people can’t think for themselves anymore.
 
It’s probably been said elsewhere so I apologise in advance… if the premier league won why have they called an emergency meeting? Why not wait till the next scheduled one? Also heard bishops comments on talkshite … no mention of the 5 year Europe ban it’s all glossed over! Sports washed by the media ?
Just saying in passing we used to stand in the gene Kelly stand and I always remember dippers coming in late ,somewhat inebriated and pushing from the back causing injuries … however it must have been my imagination …
 
Alaricmc said:
Quite some years ago (as far back as the UEFA case against us and long before the Premier League charges) I posted several detailed arguments about the litigation being ill-founded. Why? Because competition law (European and British) prevents "abuse of a dominant position" and "anti-competitive practices". It seemed odd to me at the time (though since then I've come to be wise to the anti-Arab investor, pro (disgraced) US investor stance, particularly at the Express and the Telegraph, and most notably the Guardian) that point never seemed to be made.

There are perhaps 100 - maybe 500 - maybe even 5,000 - more experienced commercial lawyers in the country than me, but I know my onions. Under pressure from the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and the Levy team, the Premier League was blackmailed into introducing regulations thet they knew to be unenforceable. Abuse of a dominant position. Anti-competitive. Read the judgement and see how many times those phrases appear, Nyah, nyah. Told you so.

Damage control from the Premier League is risible. They can change the rules by club vote to align with the verdict? Yes, they can. But that's for the future, not the past. We can still sue them for the two lost sponsorship deals. And we should.

In my 5,001st ranked commercial lawyer's experience, every possible allegation gets thrown into the pot. Why? To complicate. To confuse. Invented by me - the Premier League are puppets of Putin - just look at this memo supporting Russian involvement in European competitions. But these things are careful distractions. Although they allow the other party to claim victory in insigniicant areas.

Two things were important for us. Those two things were the only arguments we needed to win. And we won both. The rules on associated party transactions are anti-competitive and an abuse by the Premier League of a dominant position. And undercover funding (see Arsenal, Liverpool, the Levy club and Manchester United - we have none) by shareholder loans claiming to be 'repayable' are now part of any FFP assessment.

Anti-competitive practices.

Abuse of a dominant position.

(Hides under cover) Toldja so.
Click to expand...

You don’t say much but when you do, it’s worth listening to.

Well in.
 
Canter said:
It really is interesting reading the meltdown from rival fans on this.
If they don’t agree with a journalist- they must be on Abu Dhabi’s payroll
If they do agree - it’s all I knew you were on the right side, I’ve always liked your work
It’s amazing how people’s brains work when the unpalatable facts stare them in the face.
It’s a no wonder people can’t think for themselves anymore.
Click to expand...
I this wonderful adjective needs inserting.

The same thing is happening now that happened after the CAS verdict. We were totally cleared but were fined for 'not co-operating' which amounted to not supplying Uefa with material that they could then slip out the back door to their media luvvies, and the latest court win doesn't fit with how the RDAHMeedya wanted the process to unfold. Unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. They need to get their noses in a dictionary, they seem to be struggling with what the words mean. The only aspect that the PL can lather over themselves is that APT is ok - but not as they work it! Back to the drawing board Masters and don't forget to engage a lawyer who understands what your doing. The other clubs in the PL will be delighted with another share of yer lawyers' fees!
 
KS55 said:
In addition to the main findings quoted above, it is worth noting that the tribunal ruled that City have a cause of action against the PL.
Some thought will now go into our next move, but the potential damages are extensive. Pay up, Masters, the redshirts will back you all the way. Ha ha.
Click to expand...

Get them to pay damages then use that to pay our legal fees on the 115.
 
marco said:
credibility of the PL in the gutter, you could just tell Masters was a down and out fucking liar on that interview a few weeks back, they will be scurrying around like rats now searching for the better option for the next move, they would be better pulling the plug on the 115 its only going to get worse for them
Click to expand...
If this and the Leicester case are anything to go by, as well as the immediately obvious mistakes in the 115 I suspect the entire thing is full of holes. If it was an actual court of law rather than the 'independent panel' hearing them I suspect the PL could actually find themselves in serious trouble.
 
It is hard to envisage a scenario now where the PL is not on the back foot with regard to the 115. In an unrelated case, evidence shows that they have acted following pressure by City's rivals and implemented procedures that are both unlawful, AND unfairly applied. IMO, it looks much more positive for us even than it did before.
 
marco said:
credibility of the PL in the gutter, you could just tell Masters was a down and out fucking liar on that interview a few weeks back, they will be scurrying around like rats now searching for the better option for the next move, they would be better pulling the plug on the 115 its only going to get worse for them
Click to expand...

It’s a mess for the Premier League, City have taken them apart on the associated parties hearing. They didn’t understand that Leicester weren’t a Premier League club when the PL thought they were by their misinterpretation of their own rule book. It’s embarrassing for British football that this is the fractional for the few and not the many governance over what’s the top league in the world for revenue. How far do the Premier League want to take it for them to be damaged and hit in the pocket?

I eagerly await the finding of the 115 hearing, City’s lawyers are going to damage them in such a way the Premier League may not recover.
 
oldius said:
It is hard to envisage a scenario now where the PL is not on the back foot with regard to the 115. In an unrelated case, evidence shows that they have acted following pressure by City's rivals and implemented procedures that are both unlawful, AND unfairly applied. IMO, it looks much more positive for us even than it did before.
Click to expand...

The board should call Masters & ask what advice was provided before going ahead with the 115? It would not surprise me to find out that they were advised to drop it.
 
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