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

TedofChume said:
To be honest whilst it's nice that Stefan Borson provides some kick back, he really does waffle and come out with some mealy mouthed drivel at times.

At the end of the day, we were told by Platini that the whole purpose of FFP was to stop owners pumping too much money into their clubs, to try to make the game more sustainable. The PSR rules are supposed to be a more lenient/watered down version of the same, as the allowable losses are higher.

However FFP insists owner loans have interest allocated at a FMV rate and PSR doesn't (or didn't).

Judging by the Premier League's stance on this point and losing in court on it, if Mansour had simply leant City £1.5Billion at 0% then they wouldn't be pursuing City for breaching PSR... dream on.....

The Premier League have been proven by this judgement and their immediate response to be completely corrupt and disingenuous.

These hefty preferential loans at clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool have been around for over 15 years, deliberately circumventing PSR. How can they write off historical issues of interest free orclow interest loans?

I've actually calculated Liverpool's 2010 0.5% £240m loan would now stand at £735m if an FMV interest rate of 8% had been applied. They would never have had the money to buy Mo Salah, let alone Van Dijk. Alisson, Fabhino and Keita. They wouldn't have won anything at all under Klopp.

Arsenal have spent way above their means over the last 8 years using this same mechanism, to build the side they have today.

When the PSR rules were written, I find it hard to believe high quality law firms were not involved because of the sums of money at stake. These firms will have provided sound legal advice as to the legality of this issue, and almost certainly advised against it. You'd have to assume they deliberately ignored it at the behest of Arsenal, Liverpool and United to give them a loophole whilst they try to "get City"

City have had two sponsorship deals stopped this year under the APT rules that have just been found unlawful and can claim compensation. I have no idea how much they're for, but axtypical deal of £20m over 5 years is £100m. So this alone could be considerable.

Yesterday the Daily Mail, when covering this story, suggested many smaller Premier League clubs had been trying to get the Premier League to drop the PSR case against City, and settle for damages out of court.

It is now very clear to me, City are going to win their PSR case either at arbitration or on appeal in a court of law. The legal costs and compensation are going to hit £1Billion or thereabouts for this whole affair.

On the one hand, we want our club vindicated and cleared, but we don't want to destroy competitive football and the Premier League.

This is why our owners are pushing for a football regulator.

I'd love to see the Glazers. Kroenke, FSG, Joe Lewis and Boehly booted out of football for good.

I wish Stefan Borson would show more balls.
Click to expand...
What a brilliant fuckin post that is.
Well done sir.
 
bridgeno1 said:
All I'll say is how incredibly awesome is it that you guys have Stefan Borson on here to give his considered view based on years of expertise. Whilst the 'old man shouting at clouds' type of posts that dominate this thread may be more immediately visceral, facts and opinions based on years of expertise are optimal IMHO.

It's also a reminder to myself to not comment on things I don't know the ins and outs of without expressly stating it's an opinion or hearsay and should be treated as such. Others would do well to follow likewise.
Click to expand...
Indeed. You're a brave man coming on here, what with your Arsenal allegiance and all the anger that City fans now feel towards that club. Their part in all of this and their tub-thumping rallying calls to the other PL clubs to unite against big bad, cheating City, is now starting to be revealed. Hence the increasing antagonism towards AFC from most of the City fans on here.
I do feel there is a change in mood in the last few months from the other club's (and fans) perception of the "red cartel" and with this verdict, it is likely to increase. It's funny, reading through twitter and responses from Arsenal. LFC and Utd fans, none of them seem glad that rules deemed "unlawful" and "anti-completive" will likely vanish...no, they still side with the PL and still see it as big bad, cheating City trying to bully their way through the rules...which is ironic given the 'cartel" like behaviour of the aforementioned clubs.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think that’s slightly wide of the mark about Cliff. Firstly he will be professionally precluded from winning at all costs. Secondly the letter that was sent out was extremely strident of itself and even more so by way of its contents. Thirdly he will have been acting on instructions to do so, that will have been given following advice from others, including no doubt, Pannick.

This is a huge departure from the earlier press release and should be viewed accordingly.

It’s also worth pointing out the poor track record of the legal advice the PL has been in receipt of, which should colour anyone’s views on the relative quality of City’s.
Click to expand...
Could it be the case that they have received very good advice and decided to ignore it? It has been known to happen sometimes on a risk and reward basis, the risk you get found out the reward you don't and you hobble an opponent but to me it's hard to believe they actually thought they would get away with it
 
Damocles said:
It's incredibly weird how the same people who understand that other clubs executives and teams say things that may be a very liberal interpretation of events but they believe that nobody at City could possibly do the same.
Click to expand...
Have any of them sent out letters to the other clubs in such strident terms?
 
Ducado said:
Could it be the case that they have received very good advice and decided to ignore it? It has been known to happen sometimes on a risk and reward basis, the risk you get found out the reward you don't and you hobble an opponent but to me it's hard to believe they actually thought they would get away with it
Click to expand...
Who? City?
 
I'll say this again - if you are the governing body, and in a legal proceeding, the laws you enacted are judged to have been unlawful, unreasonable and unfair it impossible to claim that you won. It is unreasonable to claim a score draw even.

And it is bizarre for anyone to defend you. Clubs, pundits, fans attempting to be magnanimous. This was the thrust of Martin Samuel's article - for that to be described as nonsense just makes no sense to me.

Everyone, from every club, should be outraged by the behavior and, being kind, incompetence of the people we trust to be in charge.
 
johnny crossan said:
So if Samuel had the same training as GDM he'd be kosher and Cliff isn't representing the advice of our entire legal team? I know you feel the need to line up with the forum admin to support Stefan but really.
Click to expand...
Samuel has always been on our side on this, but there are times he writes nonsense too. In the main though he can be an over the top blusterer and while he made some good points this was one of those times.
 
This is turning into the politics thread.
Both lefties and righties finding each other, readying for battle.
I'll toss a coin into the mix and we can learn the truth.
Does Stefan stand up and celebrate an Haaland hat-trick or does he bemoan that the flag should of gone up for his 3rd goal?


I'll get my cloak
 
Damocles said:
Maybe YOU should be the one to find evidence of the thing you said happened, happening.
Click to expand...
It was months ago and to be honest wouldn't know how to find it, fairly sure it was discussed on here at the time,I'm sure others would remember but we'll see.
 
Ducado said:
Of course not the PL
Click to expand...
You didn’t say who tbf!

Yes, but there’s a huge distinction between a carefully worded press release that some PR agency has been working on for days and a letter that stridently asserts a legal position to the members of the organisation that you have been in litigation with.

The former is necessary and designed principally to limit any damage; the latter is inherently more risky, elective, and would have to be founded (especially in this instance) on unequivocal legal advice.

So the former isn’t really a function of any legal advice, whereas the latter would only be sent following that advice.
 
paulchapo said:
"Well they would wouldn't they?" As the saying goes. Here is the verdict on the charges.

Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Mandy Rice Davies (RIP) likes this quote

Screen Shot 2024-10-08 at 14.24.20.pngScreen Shot 2024-10-08 at 14.26.12.pngScreen Shot 2024-10-08 at 14.26.23.png

"Well he would, wouldn't he?", by 1979, this phrase had entered the third edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, and is occasionally referred to with the abbreviation MRDA ("Mandy Rice-Davies applies").
 
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