Pin this post^It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.
Only one party was found to have enacted unlawfully, has to rewrite its rule book possibly pay compensation.
That party isn't City.
Pin this post^It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.
Only one party was found to have enacted unlawfully, has to rewrite its rule book possibly pay compensation.
That party isn't City.
I hope they go nuclear on all issues.Thoughts on City seeking damages for the blocked sponsorships?
It’s possible for Stephan to be objective AND a City fan. Have a think.
Martin Samuel's article is total nonsense though. Who do you think reads and agrees with that piece? Nobody outside BM. Pointless.I've been disappointed in his mutual response considering he's a Blue. Martin Samuel's gave us better support.
Or they want a post that they can read in 10 seconds and which supports their view.....The compulsive need for media outlets (and some fans) to categorise a 175-page judgment into a binary "Win" or "Lose" statement which completely guts it of all context and nuance is a big part of the problem here. In fact, it's symptomatic of the way society has evolved. Nobody has time for detail, they just want a sound bite that explains everything in 10 seconds. Legal proceedings don't allow for that level of oversimplification. I can see that part of the reason Stefan is getting criticised (unfairly, in my view), is because he refuses to give into these false dichotomies. It's never as simple, never as black and white, as most layman want it to be. He has gone for the term 'score draw' to appease this crowd because he knows neither of the extreme scenarios (win/lose) are accurate descriptions.
Who "won" is simply a PR exercise that carries absolutely no substance. What does carry substance is the actions that the respective parties will now have to take. And we know the Premier League now have work to do for their rules to comply with law. That work will be even more difficult given the impact it will have on a number of clubs in the league. No, the rules aren't completely buried forever, but if they come back it will have to be in a different form. This will have also impacted them reputationally in the eyes of some, but whether that will come to matter or not remains to be seen.
City, on the other hand, may now have recourse to seek damages. And perhaps their objective was to trash APT forever (I'm not sure it was) in which case they haven't achieved that. Or perhaps prove in a court some level of discrimination in a way that can support their charges in the other case. The extent of how pleased they will be will depend upon whatever objective they had in mind, and all we can do is speculate.
Lord Pannik’s opening line on the 115!Maybe YOU should be the one to find evidence of the thing you said happened, happening.
Probably they've got history for taking the limelight away from anyone but themselvesApparently the rags regime is meeting today to discuss the future of ten bob. Wonder if they will sack him to get the pl shitshow off the front page
Fair enough although would you agree that the club is happier with the result than the PL?I'd say no. But other views are available.
The poor Premier League could only afford “drunken small claims lawyers”.Some lawyer must have put their arse into the wind for this action by the club.
Why is it total nonsense? Please be specific.Martin Samuel's article is total nonsense though. Who do you think reads and agrees with that piece? Nobody outside BM. Pointless.
The club have conducted themselves correctly throughout and Stefan has got the big call wrong - he's has rubbished Martin Samuel and contradict City's legal spokesman. Needs to wind his neck in now.
Alright Captain buzzkill, let us have one day to be happy for fucks sake.. :-)Martin Samuel's article is total nonsense though. Who do you think reads and agrees with that piece? Nobody outside BM. Pointless.
PL claiming our letter and content are incorrect. This is going to be a proper war.
@Prestwich_Blue What do you think? ;)Boom.
Interesting to hear the thoughts of some on here on this.
That sounds like seven charges - the comeback is on."Well they would wouldn't they?" As the saying goes. Here is the verdict on the charges.
Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable.
Samuel & Cliff not informed and without integrity? Serious allegations.Martin Samuel is a writer. Simon Cliff works directly for City.
Neither of these are unbiased and informed people.
Martin Samuel's article is total nonsense though. Who do you think reads and agrees with that piece? Nobody outside BM. Pointless.
A cartel of one, a tyranny of the minority....interesting.Yes it’d be sweet as fuck if we became the cartel ;)
I listen to you on Talksport just now and I dont understand others here who said that you where unfair to City. Just listen again everyone , this case is not a football match the result was some City won and some PL won , I think City is happy with the verdict that is all that matters , you as usually are my go to guy in this shitshow so keep on with all the good work you do for City fans, I for one am very pleased with everything you say on X, Podcasts and here.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.