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

mancboy said:
And that is the entire point, it is HIS considered view and that is all, the fact that he chooses to use a appalling excuse of a radio station which has in the past employed stan collymore and mark goldbridge and currently employs gabby agbonlahor and martin keown to voice that opinion somewhat reduces the veracity of that opinion. I get he is a blue and he knows his onions but that does not make him infallible and his opinions above reproach with the best well in the world if a respected surgeon decided to express his medical opinion in the beano you would have to question why.
Click to expand...
I'd answer that the odd appearance on Talksport is incredibly unlikely to outweigh the high credibility and career opportunities he'd get from retaining his credibility as a legal counsel and football finance expert by outlining opinions as he sees them based on his years of experience and access to facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However they aren't entitled to their own facts. I'd trust someone like Stefan to interpret these far better than most, and certainly far better than most posters here, myself included.

However what do I know, I'm just an Arsenal fan!
 
HelloCity said:
Be aware that claims of a PL win are linked to this:

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."

In reality the PL ‘wins’ were worthless because City only needed to show the rules were unlawful for a single season. That some of City’s claims of the rules being unlawful were thrown out means absolutely nothing.

Here’s an example:

Haaland has 5 one on ones with the keeper. The keeper saves 4 but Haaland scores 1. To win the game Haaland had to score just 1 of his 5 attempts. The keeper can claim he ‘won’ 4 but ultimately the game goes to Haaland.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying, in conclusion...is that we got the three points but we're probably better going back to the false 9?
 
mancboy said:
Neither one nor the other, not perfect or infallible, intelligent but not above question, his need to respond to any ideas that question him to seek validation suggests that he is liking the spotlight a little too much
Click to expand...
Think it is pretty clear I don't respond to every negative attack. So not sure this negative attack is justified either. But perhaps that is the spotlight talking.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Jog on and sort the interest on your loan out.
Click to expand...
Cool. I'll advise Kroenke to pay himself the money he owes himself. Maybe he can do a PayPal transfer from his Handelsbank account to his Coutts account?

It's kind of moot anyway as the whole FFP ecosystem changes next year anyway so let's see what that looks like.
 
GSW Blue said:
What they consider a win is irrelevant.

On what planet has a governing body won an independent tribunal where it is found to have abused its position of dominance by implementing rules that are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable?
Click to expand...
On the planet of lawyers which is fundamentally different to our street wise daily life of 'right and wrong'.

Lawyers haggle about wordings and definitions of written words (and those parts of written words that fit their case) to make a logic construction of their case, in a very theoretical approach. How that works out in practice is a completely different matter.

Of course PL have to declare 'significant wins' (whatever that means) and any legal experts would - on that planet - basically agree.
 
Not reading the last hundred posts, but I was trying to work out why City say the Rules are null and void (not a phrase in the judgment).

The overall conclusions (592-602) list the challenges where City succeeded and those ("all others") that failed, which sounds like they just have to tinker with the Rules.

But p. 164 is the judgment (with its ABD mistake - should be AND):
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE:

(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful

So I presume that if they're unlawful, they are all null and void.
 
Last edited:
bridgeno1 said:
I'd answer that it's highly likely that the odd appearance on Talksport is incredibly unlikely to outweigh the high credibility and career opportunities he'd get from retaining his credibility as a legal counsel and football finance expert by outlining opinions as he sees them based on his years of experience and access to facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However they aren't entitled to their own facts. I'd trust someone like Stefan to interpret these far better than most, and certainly far better than most posters here, myself included.

However what do I know, I'm just an Arsenal fan!
Click to expand...
There is many on here as qualified as stefan to interpret the legalities as much as stefan is yet they choose not to do it on talk radio and for me i trust citys legal counsel to interpret it better than a legal expert on talksport whether he is a city fan or not, like i said i am not doubting stefans credentials what i am doubting is where he chooses to exercise that expertise.
 
The Premier League clearly want to add DISCRIMINATORY to UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE - the very strong words used in the tribuneral judgement.
Law courts and tribunerals take a dim view of messing up a second time.
What bright spark thought it was OK to discount loans in 2021-2024 and not sponsorships in the same time period?
Honestly Masters should be sacked on the spot for approving such patent bollox so quickly.
 
Last edited:
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