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

[RiversideBlue]

God I love this club.

 

[Keeper!]

Pay the man it would be worth it to have Martin Samuels on side

Why?

He is independent and a free thinker.

 

[bridgeno1]

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.

And that's fair enough. I'm sure if they voice their opinions having established this credibility then it will be treated with the respect it deserves.

I'd say the vast majority of comments in the thread don't meet this threshold however. I'd include mine in that also.

 

[Ric]

Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.

 

[paulchapo]

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.

A bit like a union rep you are finding out you're damned if you do and damned if you don't lol.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Has Stefan thown his rattle out then? That's a real shame if he has, I genuinely hope he hasn't left the forum as I valued his opinions greatly.

But not everyone has to agree with him all the while. It's all about opinions.

Of course he hasn’t. It’s a comedic observation.

 

[ComfySeats]

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.

hey, my only question in all of this is forgetting everything that is being thrown at you at the moment. If we are to believe the email has been sent by manchester city about the prem mis representing facts based on the final page of the document stating the below. ANd the prem end up changing their official statement. At the point do you also change your view point and see it as the over arching win that the club are stating, or do you stick to your guns.....no malice just interested?

 

[Cobwebcat]

Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.

I thought he was fine. It’s just that Simon was very pro City for once, which won’t last.

 

[hilts]

What did the unfunny prick say?

Knock knock

Who's there?

John

John who?

John Bishop

Fuck off away from my house you unfunny toothy scouse twat

 

[.db.]

I always put my arse into my wind. It’s the only way.

This is a very wise comment^

Did you know that by standing with your back to the wind and looking at the direction of the clouds are moving in contrast to where you’re facing, you can predict the upcoming weather?

 

[slbsn]

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.

All a bit weird - I've been on here for 20 years, on Twitter for 15, writing on these topics for maybe 10 years, podcasts for 10? and watching City since 1982. So I do "it", in a lot of places. And I try and be objective. You do understand that the club are not trying to be objective don't you? It is not their job.

 

[Atypical]

What is it with numpties slamming Stefan, some right idiots on here.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

No it isn’t.

Fair enough lol. I see your point.

 

[mancboy]

Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.

My apologies if stefan feels like it was a negative attack, it wasnt my intention, i have gone out of my way to say i respect his intelligence and expertise, i do question where he chooses to exercise it and his interpretation but i dont think he is infallible same as all of us.

 

[mancboy]

All a bit weird - I've been on here for 20 years, on Twitter for 15, writing on these topics for maybe 10 years, podcasts for 10? and watching City since 1982. So I do "it", in a lot of places. And I try and be objective. You do understand that the club are not trying to be objective don't you? It is not their job.

Yes i understand that and at any point have i questioned your expertise?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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") 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.

It's the fact that they're unlawful because they currently exclude soft associated party loans, not unlawful as a holistic concept.

 

[DiscoSteve]

What interests me here is how/when the attractive shareholder loans will be brought under PSR (seems to be City's main gripe that it wasn't from the start) - how will FMV apply and what will it mean when certain clubs with large amounts of cheapo (non FMV) shareholder loans have to comply?

 

[bridgeno1]

What is it with numpties slamming Stefan, some right idiots on here.

Reminds me of Gove's infamous 'this country has had enough of experts' quote during the Brexit campaign!

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

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.

He is already doing that you dickhead, hence the +£200 million loans

 

[paulchapo]

Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.

Yes true, I got a little carried away myself at one point. It's such an emotive subject and as a club and fanbase we've been under what seems a never ending attack. It has been and is bloody wearing and stressful. Yesterday we were pretty euphoric that at last we'd given our detractors, of whom there are many, a bloody nose. I guess it was a little deflating to hear someone who was getting air time and was one of us pouring cold water onto our joy.