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

BerkshireBlue said:
Not sure why everyone is piling on to Stefan to be honest.
Click to expand...

Because he's a public figure, very knowledgeable and has said some stuff a lot of City fans don't want to hear.

It's that simple. Someone had a go at Steven McInerney the other day for... not knowing who Samuele Ricci was. Tolmie takes a load of shit every transfer window. Not to mention how quickly everyone turned on Ian Cheeseman around the time of the CAS verdict.

This is why bluemoon can't have nice things.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
This was always going to happen as soon as that email became public, the press would put a negative spin on things to generate more clicks. It's what they do.
Click to expand...
Also, he conspicuously talks about our ‘rivals’ - well we all know who he’s referring to, don’t we?
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Not sure why everyone is piling on to Stefan to be honest. It's not cut and dry, it very rarely is. City wanted the February amendments flagged as illegal and they got that but I also believe the premier league are right in that only changes are necessary to make them comply. Whether they can get those changes in is the question, I'm not convinced they can so their only option is to remove them for now. For instance the 10 day turnaround looks like it's a non starter to me, it's impossible to judge a complex sponsor within 10 days, it could take 12 months like they did with our sponsors. A limit is needed but it can't take long so it's a catch 22 situation for them.

Whatever the PL do it will weaken the rules anyway. For instance they have to give access to their databank data which is a massive win for City as they can then look at everyone else deals and actually maximise all the sponsors around that. This alone is a massive win and worth it' weight in gold to the right data analysts.
Click to expand...
That's not a pile on. If you want a pile on go and see the Russia / Ukraine thread where @Mr Kobayashi tried to have an opinion!
 
Vic said:
I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)
Click to expand...

Both on shareholder loans and database procedures, the new ones on four of the 2024 changes.

Edit: Oh, sorry. Missed your point :)
 
Tugay One Cup said:
Because he's a public figure, very knowledgeable and has said some stuff a lot of City fans don't want to hear.

It's that simple. Someone had a go at Steven McInerney the other day for... not knowing who Samuele Ricci was. Tolmie takes a load of shit every transfer window. Not to mention how quickly everyone turned on Ian Cheeseman around the time of the CAS verdict.

This is why bluemoon can't have nice things.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I think Ian Cheeseman, PB and City Rabin should have free season cards for life for their roles in rebutting the media storm around CAS.

Stefan provided great information but it would t do him any favours on Talkshite if we gave him a free season card lol
 
I think it's fair to say neither side 'won' the case completely but what we have done is prove that the Premier League is not infallible and therefore it's authority is undermined. That said, I do have a very little bit of sympathy for the Premier League's position. They are trying to treat football as a sport when, certainly in England, it's become apparent that football is about money and therefore businesses. There seems to be so many financial loopholes (what was to stop an owner loaning a club 20 billion at 0% interest and the club putting the money in a bank account and earning 5% interest, 1 billion, every year!). Bottom line for me is that the Premier League is out of it's depth and seems to be in the pocket of the red shirted businesses (as is much of the media). It's not City that needs changing it's the Premier League.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
FWIW, I think Ian Cheeseman, PB and City Rabin should have free season cards for life for their roles in rebutting the media storm around CAS.

Stefan provided great information but it would t do him any favours on Talkshite if we gave him a free season card lol
Click to expand...

I'd take it off his hands. The card, not the talksport gig. He can keep that.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...
TLDR - Christian is a silly ****.
 
I’m sure Stefan doesn’t need anyone to defend him but people also need to appreciate that he’s plainly a cautious individual, which I expect is a characteristic that has served him well professionally over the yearsI think some people are expecting him to be something he’s not, which is a ridiculous expectation quite frankly.

He’s simply playing his natural game and shouldn’t be criticised for it.
 
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