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

KS55 said:
I wonder if our legal team, using the recently disclosed emails will punt the line that the PL’s case is driven by bad faith. If they establish that the PL will have a hard time making close run items stick.
Click to expand...
I think I may have missed something here. Is there a post on herethat summarises the emails?
 
I got blocked by Delaney months ago when the subject of sportswashing came up. Basically i said sportswashing is pumping money into a business to give it a good image.
It was nothing to do with state ownership. sheik mansour getting Etihad to sponsor City is no different to saudi telecom trying to give their state a positive image by being associated with utd since before our takeover.
If one set of money is bad then so is the other. Its like saying that boxers who are sponsored by Daniel kinahan are more morally acceptable than if they boxed out of the gym he owns
 
I imagine, since the rules have been deemed unlawful, the Premier League can't just retrospectively change them and punish Arsenal, Brighton etc. by apply market interest rates to shareholder loans.

But...
This also means that they can't punish other clubs under those old unlawful rules as then you are apply one rule for one club (Man City, Newcastle etc) and not another.

So...
You have to "disapply" all the APT rules and start again, paying compensation to those impacted by the enforcement of the unlawful rules in the first place.
 
halfcenturyup said:
He even managed to throw in "technicalities" on the APT case.

*** Shakes head ***
Click to expand...
Its so amusing that they throw this in like everything in law and in general life isnt a technicality. I mean take him in reality he is a raving lunatic who writes complete nonsense to appeal to a specific set of morons but technically he is a journalist.
 
abu13 said:
Interesting times ahead, I personally don't feel that our win is enough to force Masters out of the PL. They will look at how the rules can be amended and aim to keep as many of the current restrictions in place as possible. Seek to create the illusion that they were in the right all along.

However, the big unknown is the 115 Case currently being run.

A few weeks into the hearing both sides will now be getting a "feel" for how this is panning out, If the PL are winning many of the charges and feel they are in a strong position then I can see them standing by Masters, but what if they are are seeing their charges being unfounded. Can they afford yet another humiliation with the costs escalating.

My take is, if Masters goes in the coming weeks it is more of an indicator that the main case has gone south on them.
Click to expand...

I’d say the opposite, if things are going badly for the PL in the 115 case they’ll hold on to Masters and make him the sacrificial lamb on the day they lose. No one is going to want to step into Masters role with a major humiliation potentially months away. The Red cartel will genuinely believe they can lose the case against us, have Masters resign and continue just as before… with a new puppet installed to do their dirty work.
 
Rammy Blue said:
I suppose, and hopefully you may be able to confirm, but the answers to those points above I assume will give cast iron clarity as to who was the “winner” in the hearing?
Click to expand...
There is cast iron clarity. City won. The APT rules are unlawful. And if that "by object" means what we think it means, the omission of shareholder interest-free loans was a deliberate choice to favour some clubs.

City sought a declaration that the APT rules were unlawful. They are. We won.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Remember that time I called you a ****? I take it back with sincere apologies :)

And no, costs not awarded yet. Nor have damages been assessed or other relief issued. Which means the tribunal hasn't finished yet.

View attachment 134629

Edit: Btw, the injunctive relief is presumably what Cliff was referring to in his letter. The tribunal has given the parties the opportunity to consider what further relief is appropriate (not whether, mind you, but what). It seems from Cliff's letter that discussions between the club and the PL about what should happen next were taking place but then the PL statement unilaterally concluded that only minor modifications were needed. I am guessing the club will go back (or has gone back) to the tribunal for an injunction to prevent that from happening?

Makes sense to me, but could all be bollocks, of course :)
Click to expand...
Sounds right. It's a complex area but declaratory relief allows parties to sort things out, injunctive relief is a court order saying what should be done to remedy the wrong done (to City).

Maybe the best thing would be that the bad faith shown by the PL has tainted the PL's standing in bringing the 115 charges and drops them, with a statement saying they are unsustainable in the light of the Tribunal’s finding that the APT rules were created to disadvantage competition, and the PSR rules, while still in force, are similarly tainted.

Then City say that in exchange for not claiming damages / costs, we'll help you write the new rules!
 
Last edited:
solley attwell said:
I got blocked by Delaney months ago when the subject of sportswashing came up. Basically i said sportswashing is pumping money into a business to give it a good image.
It was nothing to do with state ownership. sheik mansour getting Etihad to sponsor City is no different to saudi telecom trying to give their state a positive image by being associated with utd since before our takeover.
If one set of money is bad then so is the other. Its like saying that boxers who are sponsored by Daniel kinahan are more morally acceptable than if th
From Moscow to Manchester, airlines get a kick out of deals with football clubs | CNN Business
ey boxed out of the gym he owns
Click to expand...
 
Rammy Blue said:
I suppose, and hopefully you may be able to confirm, but the answers to those points above I assume will give cast iron clarity as to who was the “winner” in the hearing?
Click to expand...

OK. No lawyer, but I am thinking what happens in the next two weeks determines who has "won" what.

If the PL goes ahead and changes a few rules with proactive effect only, then you can put it down as a "win" for them.

If the tribunal gives injunctive relief to the club to stop the PL doing that on the basis the whole APT regime has been null and void since inception, then that is a "win" for City, of course. A big "win" because of the implication that the shareholder funding exemption makes APT unlawful also presumably means that the FFP rules are unlawful since inception too. And when I say "big win" I mean seismic in the way the sick swan was on the pitch. If any of that is at all likely, and I was the PL, I would be working with City on a solution that avoids that rather than making injudicious statements about the initial decision. I guess they think it isn't likely.

So let's wait and see what happens in the next couple of weeks.
 
solley attwell said:
I got blocked by Delaney months ago when the subject of sportswashing came up. Basically i said sportswashing is pumping money into a business to give it a good image.
It was nothing to do with state ownership. sheik mansour getting Etihad to sponsor City is no different to saudi telecom trying to give their state a positive image by being associated with utd since before our takeover.
If one set of money is bad then so is the other. Its like saying that boxers who are sponsored by Daniel kinahan are more morally acceptable than if they boxed out of the gym he owns
Click to expand...
to know its racism you only have to look at how its referred too, our money is consistently referred to as arab money not just by rival fans but by the mainstream media, forests money is never referred to as greek money, villas money is never referred to as egyptian money and wolves is never referred to chinese money, our money doesnt spend differently to any of the other money but is referred to differently and that is quite simply racism.
 
Last edited:
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