Perhaps but the Saudi Publc Investment Fund invests billions in the UK and the UK has huge trade deals with Saudi. The Government must be getting twitchy to see concrete evidence of 11 Premier League Clubs conspiring to block investment in another UK-based business. They would intervene if it was happening in any other industry. Surely what has happened to Newcastle is illegal.I think you also need to factor the US cartel's hostility to Arab countries into their dealings with the owners of City and Newcastle.
They also knew the APT 2024 amendments were illegal before they were voted through in February apparently. That's when & why City launched their action.Quite a black and white way of looking at it. It has become public that the premier league had tried to act unlawfully, bringing in rules to hamper certain sides. Prior to the case it was just speculation, we now have had it made official. In terms of the findings and which way they ruled, it is probably irrelevant. The Prem have been shown to be incompetent and bringing in rules that don't comply with UK law. It batters their credibility. Score draw my japs eye
Interesting part about that to me is surely Newcastle themselves must be rather pissed to have seen it too. Wonder what they are up to in the background?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?
Seems the only reason Newcastle's new Saudi owners were given the green light by the PL was because of government intervention.Perhaps but the Saudi Publc Investment Fund invests billions in the UK and the UK has huge trade deals with Saudi. The Government must be getting twitchy to see concrete evidence of 11 Premier League Clubs conspiring to block investment in another UK-based business. They would intervene if it was happening in any other industry. Surely what has happened to Newcastle is illegal.
Try having sons at 36, 34, and 28 you still worry about them at this age, doesn't get better.It's halfcenturyup, not up halfcentury :D
And that was 17 years ago. Jesus, where does the time go. Having 12 year old twin girls may explain some of it .... What was I thinking?
CEO of the Post Office is vacant next year.
I can't believe my post has been interpreted that way. If a journalist has access to information from one side or the other, and from someone high up the food chain then that's a good source. I can't fathom how that can be interpreted any other way.Not sure if that’s a serious question.
It looks like an open goal to me. I will be amazed if Newcastle don't take action especially if City get significant compensation for the damage done to our sponsor deals.Interesting part about that to me is surely Newcastle themselves must be rather pissed to have seen it too. Wonder what they are up to in the background?
Got to be better than being a Painter and Decorator.PL/ Masters never though of that - do you want a new job ?
Well my list of people who I’d never invite to an orgy is getting longer.
Who’d of thought there could be as many soulless, joyless people on one, originally celebratory thread! Haha!
So politically incorrect but still brilliant. :-)Hong Kong Phooey likes this post!
I think I’m asking a different question in that case. I’m giving up now though. I remember Stephan put up a tweet on X answering what happens next? On that it clearly said that all the PL had to do was correct the existing rules with the judges amendments re shareholders. I’m guessing City don’t agree for the reason you state.I'm having a go at answering the question, "Why do City say the Rules are void?"
Because that's what the law says. If the Rules are unlawful (for whatever reason) they are prohibited rules and any agreement, or decision of an association, including the prohibited Rules is thus void. [Competition Act 1988, s.2(4)]
Yep. The legislation is now urgent. Mr. Herbert, it is not City damaging the PL, it is the PL themselves for putting in place unlawful rules, despite the fact that we warned them at the time.It's the arrogance of abusing your position being judge, jury & executioner. The way they had this stitched up, they didn't care what the "Gulf State Clubs" said or did about this obvious con.
The best bit is yet to come. The PL have to include all shareholder loans & make available this "mythical" historic sponsorship database that no one but the PL has seen or has access to, or scrap the fuckin lot. Either way, they've royally stiffed themselves.
The Martin Samuel article in The Times is particularly damning. He outlines how the PL highlighted APT issues with clubs & companies from the "Gulf States", but totally failed to mention American owned clubs & sponsors.
It's time to end this fuckin farce & bring in an independent regulator for English football (IREF).
Stefan, do you really believe that the PL would sanction United when they are supposed to have vetted Masters before he got the job?These aren’t views and you claimed to have quoted me.
Anyway, we don’t agree on Covid because even United aren’t suggesting the £40m related to match day in 2021/22 because the stadia were open all season. 2021/22 Covid was different which is why a £40m claim when Arsenal disclosed £2m is interesting. But United have to look after themselves. It is for the PL to block exaggerated claims
I'm having a go at answering the question, "Why do City say the Rules are void?"
Because that's what the law says. If the Rules are unlawful (for whatever reason) they are prohibited rules and any agreement, or decision of an association, including the prohibited Rules is thus void. [Competition Act 1988, s.2(4)]
Got to be better than being a Painter and Decorator.
If we know the source will always give a one sided, often erroneous version of the events they wish to see take place then we know we can discount that source for its bias.I can't believe my post has been interpreted that way. If a journalist has access to information from one side or the other, and from someone high up the food chain then that's a good source. I can't fathom how that can be interpreted any other way.
I'd argue for example that Delaney is in the same camp as Panja but he doesn't appear to have any sources, just opinions.
It is my fervent hope that the Tribunal is just as offended, and says so - and adds exemplary damages to any compensation to City. "The primary intent of such damages is not to remunerate the injured party but rather to punish the defendant for their conduct and deter them, and others, from engaging in similar behaviour in the future."One lesson for us going forward is that if Masters and his cartel conspirators suggest another binding arbitration process instead of formal legal proceedings, we tell them to shove it. There is little point in an arbitration procedure if the losers misrepresent the result and fail to act in accordance with it.
If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the claim would consider the reasons for the loss (was it purely the unlawful rules causing the rejection for example) and, if causation was proved, then there would be an assessment of loss .Question for @slbsn
If the Etihad deal is eventually given the green light after being initially refused what are City’s options given the tribunal stated it must be set aside due to procedural failings?
For example, let’s say it was a five-year deal due to start in the 24/25 season. Etihad may turn around and say they don’t want to commit to any sponsorship beyond the 28/29 season so it must now be a four-year deal starting in the 25/26 season.
Could City claim damages from the PL for the full Y1 value?