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

[M18CTID]

Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?

You probably don't realise it but you've actually nailed it with that post. Whatever they feed to journalists will be loaded with bias. That doesn't make them good sources.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

The email to the clubs said Cliff would also send something to the PL, iirc.

 

[Vic]

Only did 3 years at a sports law firm and instead now is a well connected legal journalist?

You're right, let's believe Martin Samuel instead whose qualifications seem to be "says what I prefer to hear".



This guy is Associate Professor at LSE Law School and Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law. He says essentially the same as Stefan and The Lawyer.

Does he explain why City think the APT rules are now void?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Yep. From what I can gather, City were intent on tackling the February 24 amendment to the APT rules first and foremost and we won on that so the Premier League can go and get fucked.

It’s gone from city have won on a couple of trivial technicalities to the Prem calling an emergency meeting, within the space of the week.

 

[BobbyBoy]

Because we know what their end-game is. They might be 'good' for him but they're using him as a mouthpiece for their anti-City agenda.

That is by definition an excellent source. You want to know where the other side is at, then follow Panja. Nobody reads him or Delaney and expects to see any supportive or even impartial of City. Ziegler is probably the only one I'd define as impartial, the rest are all clearly one side of the other. Samuel has a piece out in 20 minutes the other day, so did Lawton. That again is a great source but the other side would say they're a mouthpiece for the City agenda.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Employed by the same employer, as per LinkedIn

Can’t see that mate. Where about?

Having looked he is due a small correction because he does have an educational qualification in the jurisdiction, namely an MA in 2019, although in International Relations which is interesting because he was practising in law at the time and therefore it’s surprising his MA wasn’t in law (unless I’m missing something with International Relations).

 

[Vic]

Yep. From what I can gather, City were intent on tackling the February 24 amendment to the APT rules first and foremost and we won on that so the Premier League can go and get fucked.

Not just the amendments. The rules themselves are unlawful.

 

[.db.]

After taking the day to wait for people qualified to analyse this to analyse this, the idea that City won some major win and Stefan was downplaying it is clearly wrong.
Having read The Lawyer's take on it, I'm surprised he thinks it was even a "score draw" frankly.

That it was found that any part of the APT rules or practices were unlawful is all that matters.

That it was found that interest free shareholders loans are unlawful could end up being huge for the league and very impactful for a few clubs.

Whether we lost many of the other things we took them to court on is neither here nor there really. The main thing is that we’ve made the PL look like a dodgy, secretive, underhand and untrustworthy organisation of shysters who have brought in unlawful rules and allowed unlawful practices to go on that benefits or lets off some clubs and not others.

It’s not about a 11:9 win either way, or even 17:3 against.

People are slowly but surely discovering that the PL are not fit to run the top league in this country. That’s where we’ve won.

 

[BlueMojito]

Thanks.

Do we assume that's the whole of the City letter quoted?

Perhaps they only published the polite version :-)

 

[Damocles]

You were commenting on his ability to analyse the law, not his abilities as a journalist, at which he appears to be decent.

But he didn't DO any real analysis of the law. He stated the facts of the judgement and then said "here's what a bunch of experienced people think".

And besides, 3 years of sports law makes him one billion percent more qualified and experienced to comment on the judgement than every single working football journalist in this country combined.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

After taking the day to wait for people qualified to analyse this to analyse this, the idea that City won some major win and Stefan was downplaying it is clearly wrong.
Having read The Lawyer's take on it, I'm surprised he thinks it was even a "score draw" frankly.

As personal observation your input appears intent on taking a soulless, superior and sneering approach to this topic.

Do you have a dog in the race by any chance ?

 

[give it to gordon]

They were running out of candidates that could clearly be manipulated by the redshirt clubs.

The fact that the first 3 candidates turned the job down does imply something didn't sit right with the pl preferred candidates. Something they didn't agree with.

 

[freshie]

According to Ziegler the panel will be issuing further findings on the case to clarify the status of the APT rules.

Panel’s full findings on Man City may cause earthquake for Premier League

The ruling in the tribunal that caused such an impact on Tuesday may be only the first tremor: revealing the full explanation may have a devastating effect on the future of the top flight

www.thetimes.com

 

[Vic]

That it was found that any part of the APT rules or practices were unlawful is all that matters.

That it was found that interest free shareholders loans are unlawful could end up being huge for the league and very impactful for a few clubs.

Whether we lost many of the other things we took them to court on is neither here nor there really. The main thing is that we’ve made the PL look like a dodgy, secretive, underhand and untrustworthy organisation of shysters who have brought in unlawful rules and allowed unlawful practices to go on that benefits or lets off some clubs and not others.

It’s not about a 11:9 win either way, or even 17:3 against.

People are slowly but surely discovering that the PL are not fit to run the top league in this country. That’s where we’ve won.

And the phrase "red cartel" is now in everyone's head. Big win.

Will enough clubs support any new rules if the first question is, "Would we spend millions defending in court these rules designed to help the red cartel?"?

 

[BobbyBoy]

Can’t see that mate. Where about?

Having looked he is due a small correction because he does have an educational qualification in the jurisdiction, namely an MA in 2019, although in International Relations which is interesting because he was practising in law at the time and therefore it’s surprising his MA wasn’t in law (unless I’m missing something with International Relations).

I'm not getting involved in his qualifications, just scanned the LinkedIn profile you shared, I'll leave it for people that know about that stuff to judge. All I was interested in was who he knows. All the people he worked with at Solesbury went straight into employment elsewhere, including the founding partner who heads up UK Athletics.

 

[give it to gordon]

View attachment 134433




View attachment 134434

Be interesting if anything comes out about the email which states stopping middle east owned clubs and trying to hurry through new rules

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

But he didn't DO any real analysis of the law. He stated the facts of the judgement and then said "here's what a bunch of experienced people think".

And besides, 3 years of sports law makes him one billion percent more qualified and experienced to comment on the judgement than every single working football journalist in this country combined.

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. It appeared that you were saying that he was qualified to comment rather than the unnamed sources in the article. If so, there are various manifest problems with this approach, given, in particular, the anonymity of the sources and the author’s ability to cherry pick tendentiously.

I think you are overstating his experience in the second paragraph. On the face if it, he would have been little more than an errand boy within a firm that failed and had its licence to practise revoked. I highly doubt he will have been ultimately responsible for any heavyweight work, or possible even exposed to any. So one billion percent might be a little OTT!

And it’s ‘judgment’ :-)

 

[ancoats]

I'd imagine the MP involved won't have an executive role withing IREF, but more of an oversight role.

When the Pie is this big you can bet MP will be having a slice
The Good thing is City have nice-tasting pies and would be willing to share

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm not getting involved in his qualifications, just scanned the LinkedIn profile you shared, I'll leave it for people that know about that stuff to judge. All I was interested in was who he knows. All the people he worked with at Solesbury went straight into employment elsewhere, including the founding partner who heads up UK Athletics.

But tif, he didn’t. I think that’s material and worthy of note.

I think the notion that he eschewed a career at a Magic Circle firm in order to pursue a career in the noble profession of journalism, despite the huge gulf in earnings, is fanciful at best.

I think it’s safe to assume that it’s likely that if he was any good then he’d still be practising in sports law, especially as he plainly is engaged by the subject matter.

And fair play to him btw. He’s apparently found something he’s better suited to.

 

[flb]

That it was found that any part of the APT rules or practices were unlawful is all that matters.

That it was found that interest free shareholders loans are unlawful could end up being huge for the league and very impactful for a few clubs.

Whether we lost many of the other things we took them to court on is neither here nor there really. The main thing is that we’ve made the PL look like a dodgy, secretive, underhand and untrustworthy organisation of shysters who have brought in unlawful rules and allowed unlawful practices to go on that benefits or lets off some clubs and not others.

It’s not about a 11:9 win either way, or even 17:3 against.

People are slowly but surely discovering that the PL are not fit to run the top league in this country. That’s where we’ve won.

You know the tide is turning when Joe 90 on talksport mentions the word cartel.