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

We won on the main headline substantive points . Rival fans and some know nothing TalkSHITE presenters pathetically trying to spin the outcome as not quite the win City are claiming. We won, slam dunk, clear win and in doing so, have despite the protests, proved the Prem high command to be incompetent in their creation of 'unlawful' rules. That same line of incompetence applies to the 115 charges. To me, a genius move by Pannick to prove the Prem to be incompetent.
 
supercity88 said:
It's quite odd to hear Jordan claiming a City win and Stefan being more neutral.

In Stefan's defence, he's trying to give his qualified opinion on things. City brought a number of matters to the court with an attempt to destroy the APT rules. The fact we didn't succeed on that means there is an argument we didn't win. I would have thought Stefan would know enough at this point to understand City's true intention was to reverse the rule changes that have blocked our most recent sponsorship deals and in winning on those points it's job done.

I would also think that he's more keen to calm the rhetoric that this will destroy football and lead to City being able to do whatever we want. If he's openly claiming a City win he probably loses all credibility when it comes to making that argument.
Click to expand...
"attempt to destroy the APT rules"


Not true, I would imagine the last thing our execs want is Newcastle and Co getting a blank cheque
 
GSW Blue said:
When an independent tribunal finds that a governing body has “abused its dominant position”, shouldn’t there be some repercussions in terms of those responsible being removed from post?
Click to expand...

I said this yesterday.

Has to be a sacking offence or at the very least lead to resignations?

If a GP, cop, teacher etc did the same they’d be out the door before they could fart.
 
Only in this country can the media report the opinion of the losing side as fact rather than quote the actual findings of the tribunal. Perhaps it’s the fantasy age we live in where the premier league can self identify as winners and proclaim ‘their truth’.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Biggest shithouse, shit stirring **** on the planet.

Wasn’t he all apocalyptic when we first brought the case? City taking massive liberties etc?
Click to expand...

Wunder if he's had a message from City's lawyers ?

But you are correct and is just an absolute **** of an individual who cannot be trusted or taken seriously.

I honestly do not understand why so many listen to the shite.
 
City Raider said:
That link is very revealing.

In summary it seems we are saying ATP is unlawful, all of it. So what if we didn’t win on a few counts. We only needed to win one for it to be unlawful.

We are bringing the house down. After years of frustration with our softly, softly approach, the gloves are now off. There is no going back.
Click to expand...

It's all.of their own making. We tried, God how we tried, to conform, to fit in, to appease and to be nice. The only problem was we kept on winning things. In spite of all their hatred, bile, illegal rule changes, letter writing and a relentless media smear campaign, we just kept on winning. Trophy after trophy while playing the best football this country had ever seen. They mistook our kindness for weakness, until the bullies went one step too far, bouyed by our compliance. They wanted to wipe out our family. Now they've found out. Oh fucking have they!
 
Damocles said:
Stefan is a lawyer first and a City fan second, which is why he's a credible voice.

Yes, it's nice to see the PL and the ragtops squirm as their confidence drains away but that is incidental to the facts. The facts are as @slbsn explained. In the big picture, this judgement doesn't mean too much for the future as the rules will be tweaked to comply. That's the correct position for a legal person to take imo, he's not a cheerleader.

The really interesting part here to me is that it has been legally established that the PL broke its own rules in how it dealt with City.
Click to expand...
Certain individuals/clubs and in conjunction with the PL, have been found to be acting like a cartel. Introducing unlawful measures to try and nobble other member clubs. For me THAT is the bigger picture and it’s disappointing that Stefan is seemingly playing it all down as it doesn’t mean too much blah blah blah with regards to APT. Never mind APT, what about clubs acting in bad faith towards other clubs. Why is the cartel piece not the big story here?
 
mancboy said:
I dont think that, but he does keep getting invited bk and historically that has meant towing the party line where talksport is concerned.
Click to expand...
It was meant as tongue in cheek.
But the more time you spend with someone the more like them you can become
 
Keeper! said:
City-chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, reportedly told UEFA general secretary at the time, Gianni Infantino, that he “would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them (
Click to expand...
I just love him and want his babies.
 
supercity88 said:
It's quite odd to hear Jordan claiming a City win and Stefan being more neutral.

In Stefan's defence, he's trying to give his qualified opinion on things. City brought a number of matters to the court with an attempt to destroy the APT rules. The fact we didn't succeed on that means there is an argument we didn't win. I would have thought Stefan would know enough at this point to understand City's true intention was to reverse the rule changes that have blocked our most recent sponsorship deals and in winning on those points it's job done.

I would also think that he's more keen to calm the rhetoric that this will destroy football and lead to City being able to do whatever we want. If he's openly claiming a City win he probably loses all credibility when it comes to making that argument.
Click to expand...
I imagine it's quite scripted. Jordan as the agitator (of red shirt listeners) and Stephan presenting the counter / neutral view. Talk sport sticks to a formula to keep people on the hook long enough to hear selko ads.
 
supercity88 said:
It's quite odd to hear Jordan claiming a City win and Stefan being more neutral.

In Stefan's defence, he's trying to give his qualified opinion on things. City brought a number of matters to the court with an attempt to destroy the APT rules. The fact we didn't succeed on that means there is an argument we didn't win. I would have thought Stefan would know enough at this point to understand City's true intention was to reverse the rule changes that have blocked our most recent sponsorship deals and in winning on those points it's job done.

I would also think that he's more keen to calm the rhetoric that this will destroy football and lead to City being able to do whatever we want. If he's openly claiming a City win he probably loses all credibility when it comes to making that argument.
Click to expand...
As i said yesterday the idea that we attempted to destroy the original apt rules is fundamentally inaccurate, we were concerned with the amendments and how they were being specifically applied to us, on both those specifics we were proved correct and as a by product the entirety of the rules now have to be looked at, to suggest otherwise is buying the pl spin
 
Longdarnit Blue said:
Only in this country can the media report the opinion of the losing side as fact rather than quote the actual findings of the tribunal. Perhaps it’s the fantasy age we live in where the premier league can self identify as winners and proclaim ‘their truth’.
Click to expand...

This country always like a loser and big's it up as a winner
 
Keeper! said:
"attempt to destroy the APT rules"


Not true, I would imagine the last thing our execs want is Newcastle and Co getting a blank cheque
Click to expand...

It is true. We took the PL to court over the full set of rules, not certain parts of them. The intention would have been to ensure those that restrict us were removed - job done. But we didn't limit our case to certain elements of the rulebook we sought to remove all of them.
 
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