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.
Have you read all of the judgment. Be honest.
The end result was pretty much as I expected - main principles upheld and some meaningful but not necessarily decisive wins. Like it or not that is my objective view. You don’t need to agree but it is based on reading what was said not simply my life long football bias.
And even if you don’t agree it doesn’t change that challenges like this are very hard to win which was a point you seem to also disagree with
Now he as the info, the clubs lawyers are saying all the rules are null and void. Stefan goes on national radio and call it a score draw.To be fair to him, He actually said it would be very difficult to prove with the limited info he had at the time. More info is now out but he didnt have access to that at the time of his original comments…
PL might also have to exchange their complete legal team as they have advised rules contradicting current UK law. That has been done on purpose.So City didnt lose this one and are already questioning the PLs response as inaccurate.
Chess wise its close to check mate and the PL will certainly need new leaders asap with Masters first to go.
I have answered aboveStill awaiting your comments? Would be good to have your view on this:
From City’s letter…
The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was “not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements.
"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law.
I have read it. Have you?Read the verdict, in what universe have the EPL won?
Are you also certain that the changes necessary can be implemented by the PL in the next 10 days. Presumably yes if they are minor and they have won?I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.
I have read it. Have you?
They have successfully defended many points. They will consider that a significant win.
Blimey. Ever done any media? Press take the sound bites they want and twist it eg when stefan says relegation might be a remedy and they don’t add “but very unlikely” codicil. Look at headlines today where they all use the outcome for their previous narrative. Even Martin Samuel (which of course we all love to read). I for one am pleased to hear Stefan correcting Jordan et al and presenting our case. If he was two one sided he wouldn’t get on the radio - it’s a tricky balance to pull off.I pointed out Stefan's motives in the FFP thread, & was rounded on by the forum's chief Yesterdays Man for it, but I'm glad others are beginning to sense what I did.
Stefan's become known in the mainstream media as some sort of City Insider & it seems his doom & gloom assessments are more about building on his growing public platform, than citing rational facts.
It's as simple as this imo... If City are guilty of what amounts to massive fraud, where are HMRC, FCA & the Serious Fraud Squad?
Our company accounts have been audited & certified by one of the world's leading auditors, & are available to view at Companies House. What additional info is necessary regarding PSR etc?
Once these tribunal processes are over, of what use will Stefan be to Talk Shite?
I've recently seen him popping up on my news feed as a "City Insider" discussing how much we've got to spend in January & on which transfer targets.
This is why I pointed out that his assessments may be factual, but I suspected they're also given with Stefan's long-term media future in mind.
It does City no favours to see headlines like: "City Insider: City likely to be relegated & sued our of existence!". It's hyperbole we can do without, hence why I no longer read anything Stefan has to say. He's quite evidently got a personal media agenda to nurture.
If they are so sure they won why does the key word from the judgment, ‘unlawful’, not appear in the 1,200 word PL statement? If that finding is insignificant then why not refer to it as per the judgment. It’s because they know its significance and want to avoid it.You'd also assume that the clubs legal team have pronounced it a win as the statement yesterday and the subsequent letter are very strongly worded. If they were trying to put a gloss on the outcome they would be far more 'open to interpretation' as the PL response is.
What they consider a win is irrelevant. On what planet has a governing body won a case in which they have been found to have abused their position of dominance and implemented rules that are found to be unlawful, unfair and unreasonable?
What they consider a win is irrelevant.I have read it. Have you?
They have successfully defended many points. They will consider that a significant win.
Well said!This.
A governing body that sets the rules, seems to be celebrating that only some of the rules are unlawful.
If that's success, what would failure have been?