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

bobbyowenquiff said:
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?
Click to expand...
Maybe Bobby, that director will be expecting a knock on his door if what he did was illegal, I dont know if it is, someone might. This house of cards is looking shaky and if someone gets lifted it will be spectacular, all the red shirts and others fighting between themselves saying it wasn't us. One thing you can be sure of is our owners are no fools as many people are going to find out in the coming months.
 
Last edited:
Churchlawtonblue said:
You assuming Everton will still back us? Will they still given that they have the most shareholder debt.

Southampton West Ham and Fulham have no shareholder loans either so they won't be affected by the future interest payments.
Click to expand...
Everton’s shareholder debt is all stadium related isn’t it? Don’t think it’s even being factored in in the deal to sell the club, so will likely just be written off in equity.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I agree actually, with some controls over debt and community assets. Let's not forget clubs in Europe need to comply with UEFA FFP even if all the PL FFP is scrapped, giving other clubs the chance to develop through investment.
Click to expand...
FFP is only needed at Euro level. If you get into Europe, you comply with UEFA FFP to ensure that no single league becomes too powerful and runs roughshod over all others, which arguably the PL could do without FFP. It means the likes of City, Arsenal etc do have some restrictions on their spend. No issues with that.

The only reasons to stop clubs like Newcastle, Forest et al spending, is either to stop them going out of business (which we know it isn't the reason) or to stop them competing and potentially replacing a cartel club. I see nothing remotely like financial fair play in that.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
We do but others need to think a bit!
Click to expand...

That seems to be real stumbling block.

The chairmen of the non-cabal clubs can't be so blind as to see what the redshirts/yanks are doing to achieve their selve-serving approach, to the detriment of everybody else, and yet the fuckers keep getting sucked in.
 
Just caught the back end of a interview with a guy from Etihad on sky business news segment.
The interviewer asked him about the city sponsorship, he replied it's brought enormous exposure to Etihad, even in places like Brazil, said we are massive over there.

Well worth 8 million....I mean 60 million a year.
 
Milesvk said:
Just caught the back end of a interview with a guy from Etihad on sky business news segment.
The interviewer asked him about the city sponsorship, he replied it's brought enormous exposure to Etihad, even in places like Brazil, said we are massive over there.

Well worth 8 million....I mean 60 million a year.
Click to expand...
Saw that too. Impressive answer. I’m sure he hadn’t been primed!
 
Stoned Rose said:
Stefan and Damocles are wrong.

We proved their rules are unlawful. Which is what we set out to do.
Click to expand...
Without wishing the thread to go round in circles, I think you will find with some certainty that they are adamant that they are not wrong, they have taken a different stance on the findings, which of course is their perogative. ;-)
 
Chef executive Of Etihad on Sky Business news just talking about Man City. He says the sponsorship deals with the club are FMV & in return they get amazing exposure from the club. Just in the last 12 months they have increased turnover by 30%.

Looking at the original sponsorship which many said was inflated now looks like a fantastic deal.
Etihad obviously looked at the project by CFG & liked what they saw.
So the question is what is an over inflated deal?
 
hihosilva said:
Chef executive Of Etihad on Sky Business news just talking about Man City. He says the sponsorship deals with the club are FMV & in return they get amazing exposure from the club. Just in the last 12 months they have increased turnover by 30%.

Looking at the original sponsorship which many said was inflated now looks like a fantastic deal.
Etihad obviously looked at the project by CFG & liked what they saw.
So the question is what is an over inflated deal?
Click to expand...

Exactly what arsenal want it to be.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Without wishing the thread to go round in circles, I think you will find with some certainty that they are adamant that they are not wrong, they have taken a different stance on the findings, which of course is their perogative. ;-)
Click to expand...
Exactly. Stefan and those that agree with him can consider an organisation to have won at an independent tribunal where it has been found that they have abused their dominant position by implementing rules that are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. The rest of us are allowed a different view.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
That seems to be real stumbling block.

The chairmen of the non-cabal clubs can't be so blind as to see what the redshirts/yanks are doing to achieve their selve-serving approach, to the detriment of everybody else, and yet the fuckers keep getting sucked in.
Click to expand...
Are they not yanks?
 
GSW Blue said:
Exactly. Stefan and those that agree with him can consider an organisation to have won at an independent tribunal where it has been found that they have abused their dominant position by implementing rules that are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. The rest of us are allowed a different view.
Click to expand...
I don't think they said the PL had won, their stance was more like, there is no clear winner?
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Without wishing the thread to go round in circles, I think you will find with some certainty that they are adamant that they are not wrong, they have taken a different stance on the findings, which of course is their perogative. ;-)
Click to expand...
The contest between their adamancy and that of the majority on here could perhaps be plotted in relative terms on a graph by one of our many accountants ;-)
 
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