The rationale behind that being, I think, that during the time the shareholders loans were excluded from APT it placed all other clubs who did not have them at a disadvantage which cannot be remedied.He is saying that, at the moment the judgment was issued, certain of the rules have been declared unlawful and so the APT rules are immediately, as a whole, null and void. Are they are null and void today, and will be until new lawful rules are put in place.
I suppose a consequence of that would be that they were null and void in the full period 2021 to 2024 as well.
I have no idea if any of that is correct, just no-one has pooh-poohed it yet.
says that at the end of each of the 4 unlawful judgments - just a conventional identifier, doesn't preclude further instancesThanks Vic but it says….
“that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;”
That says to me that if the shareholder loans area is corrected then it becomes lawful as they state that is the only reason?
No. The bean counters at City will want the best of both worlds!I might be living in fantasy land, but with PSR basically in the bin and the chance for clubs to create much higher sponsorship deals, couldnt ticket prices be cheaper? Knowing that revenue wont be relied on as much.
If it was the case that City's sponsors could pay City massive amounts of money if the APT rules was abolished, why then didn't they do that before the APT rules existed.That's what they want you to believe. They can get you under the acting in good faith rule even if they remove the threshold transactions and arm's length determination along with the APT rules.
That is what they were threatening those end of season weird swap deals with, and what they may still use if they feel strong enough after all this :P
Sam Matterface was a 'journalist'? That's not a description I have heard before. I quite like it.
Not a chance massive legal fees need paying nowI might be living in fantasy land, but with PSR basically in the bin and the chance for clubs to create much higher sponsorship deals, couldnt ticket prices be cheaper? Knowing that revenue wont be relied on as much.
If that's the case, wouldn't it be quite smart to have someone on there who currently doesn't represent City and takes a factual and unbiased stance with a remarkable expertise? Maybe understatement and calmness is the way that serves us well trying to convince people that maybe the picture painted by media is not quite as perfect as many have hoped to be...I wouldn't call you a liar, however that was never a 1-1 draw.
I don't think talkshite is the place to be to put a balanced argument across, especially when the majority of it's listeners hate City.
UEFA rules, same ones still in place.If it was the case that City's sponsors could pay City massive amounts of money if the APT rules was abolished, why then didn't they do that before the APT rules existed.
Self serving cunts...Because they are both cunts.
Really? That I did not realise.says that at the end of each of the 4 unlawful judgments - just a conventional identifier, doesn't preclude further instances
PL will be paying most of those.Not a chance massive legal fees need paying now
Take the Geordies. In the past Newky Brown and fkn Wonga were worthy flagship sponsors. Looking at their potential under Saudi ownership, the picture looks slightly different.Benchmarking = a useful indicator of yesterday.
Connected to whom?
I think he originally said that any wins would be small gains...he never said we would not win "anything".I think there's an element of reputation management for Stefan. He wrote off City's chance of winning anything with this challenge so he's naturally playing down our success.
It is shocking and depressing that the Newcastle story is getting virtually no coverage. As you say it's not a conspiracy theory. The evidence for the APT case shows that one (redacted) Club Director orchestrated a group of ten other club directors who then colluded with Richard Masters to introduce an emergency amendment to the rules to block investment at Newcastle United. What did the other nine clubs (including City and Newcastle) think about this collusion? How can any organisation enable a partial group of its shareholders, supported by the CEO, to actively inflict commercial damage on another member? Is this activity even legal? Who is going to investigate what is happening behind closed doors at the Premier League?It depends on funding obviously. But I struggle to see how it could do any worse. The entire implementation of PSR has been a shitshow from beginning to end. It's stupid strategically in terms of refusing investment in the league, it has ruined the PL's brand worldwide by accusing several of its clubs of cheating, and it has showed the utter incompetence of the PL when it comes to their ability to draft rules compatible with UK competition and public law.
Every single step they have taken on this issue has been a misstep of some kind, and the more these leaks come out like what happened in the APT case with Newcastle, the more you can plainly see that the Premier League are attempting to manage the fortunes of their most powerful clubs at the expense of others. The way they attempted to (and arguably did) directly target and fuck over Newcastle should be the story coming out of this whole mess. That's cheating. It is blatant, premeditated, unadulterated cheating that has been shown to exist in a legal arena. It's not a conspiracy theory. This isn't like us or United or someone cheating, this is the actual regulator themselves.
The PL cannot be trusted to regulate itself and while the grass may not be greener, it is worth a go because what we have now is corrupt.
Suit yourself but while anyone is entitled to an opinion and there might be some self proclaimed experts I don’t think there’s any doubt that some opinions come from a place of greater knowledge and experience than others and do carry more weight.I've spent a lot of time reading this forum recently and in the past. This thread has been a source of comfort and education both in equal measures.
However all good things come to an end , the back biting and endless tit for tat infighting has become tiresome.
I'm particularly pissed off with the condescending attitude of do called " "experts". In the greater scheme of things it's only a forum so all opinions are of equal value or equally inconsequential.
As a consequence I'm going to take some time away from this thread and try to put some posters on "block " if I can.
So if it's down to Uefa rules City would still abide with them rules even if the APT rule didn't apply in this country.UEFA rules, same ones still in place.
That’s why I avoid the political forum like the plague. Certain individuals (no names, no pack drill) are very clever and researched to the hilt, but have low EQ and even less tolerance of lesser mortals.I've spent a lot of time reading this forum recently and in the past. This thread has been a source of comfort and education both in equal measures.
However all good things come to an end , the back biting and endless tit for tat infighting has become tiresome.
I'm particularly pissed off with the condescending attitude of do called " "experts". In the greater scheme of things it's only a forum so all opinions are of equal value or equally inconsequential.
As a consequence I'm going to take some time away from this thread and try to put some posters on "block " if I can.
You think City are such a popular club amongst the media that the likes of Lawton would be rushing together his pro-City piece in? We're public media enemy no1 and the shit we have taken in the press over the last few years backs that up. The likes of Lawton is only going to write a pro-City article if he genuinely believes in it himself, we ain't paying him. Odd that Spurs did not appear to side with the PL re APT, or have I missed something? Levy always appears to want to ingratiate himself with the Red Cartel.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.