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

Vic said:
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 the 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!
Click to expand...

:) I could suggest a few new rules.
 
mancboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

It’s like the whole plan wasn’t trying to destroy City on a technicality.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Unfortunately over recent years we have seen a growing tendency towards greater regulation, particularly financial, and I have to say that the authorities have made a pretty rotten job of it. The authorities, or the cartel, or whoever are so scared that very rich owners will dominate football at the expense of the "traditional" elite that they have missed, or do not wish to see that these clubs have manipulated the PL into a series of regulations that ensure that super wealthy owners cannot use their wealth to grow and improve their clubs. The regulations also enable owners to take money out of their clubs and the game, load their clubs with debt and generally run it unlike any other industry. The paradox is that, although football is not just like any other business football clubs have to be much more business like than they were some 20 years ago. And this is what the regulations rule out. City's lawyers have struck the first blow against this insidious, dishonest regime and helped take the first step back to sanity. It won't be perfect but it will be a lot better and a lot more honest ... and lawful. So I still believe that your original post describes exactly the kind of owners who belong not in any other business but in the PL. The regulations do not protect football or owners "who act like custodians" but the kind of owners who should not be allowed within a million miles of any English club.
Click to expand...
And it was only by the skin of their teeth that Everton managed to stay in the PL, they so very easily could have got relegated through points deductions and entered the abyss, who would have bought Everton without PL football? Same for Forest, yet those wankers in Trafford escape any punishment or point deductions.

Its as bent as fuck, the whole of the PL regime is bent as fuck and not just Masters.
 
It's easy to think there are lots of conspiracy theorists, over-sensitive City fans taking offence at every perceived slight, imagining a carefully orchestrated cartel PR campaign against us.....BUT the reaction to our victory in the APT case has really flushed them out, removed even the tiniest bit of doubt as to who are the cartel mouthpieces.

The single page conclusions of the Premier League behaviour towards us is crystal clear... unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable. And they're debating if that's a comprehensive finding in our favour....
 
halfcenturyup said:
Haha. Just read Delaney's latest piece. Apparently it's all due to clubs being state-owned. Not the PL putting in place, at the behest of certain clubs, unlawful rules to counter a perceived threat that hadn't at the time, or has now for that matter, materialised. And nothing to do with him just releasing a(nother) book about the evils of sportswashing, I don't suppose.

I am still amazed that the tribunal accepted there was a single reason for APT rules other than to stop Newcastle and City. The evidence put before them was weak imho (PL been discussing APTs since 2018 - why then I wonder? - but no formal discussions until post-Newcastle; UEFA's charges against City - which as we know were all thrown out; and the PL's case against City - which hasn't concluded so is no indication of any reason at all to do anything, if it is why not just deduct points now? Can't get my head around any of that. Especially as the PL, I don't think, can point to a single sponsorship that has subsequently been shown to be "evidently" above fmv. As I said, the tribunal needed fewer lawyers and more accountants :)

Anyway, Delaney is a funny little fella, isn't he?

For those that want to read it without giving him a click:


There are some crackers in it.
Click to expand...
This prick is starting to realise the PL are going to lose, so now talks about going back to having jumpers for goal posts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Haha. Just read Delaney's latest piece. Apparently it's all due to clubs being state-owned. Not the PL putting in place, at the behest of certain clubs, unlawful rules to counter a perceived threat that hadn't at the time, or has now for that matter, materialised. And nothing to do with him just releasing a(nother) book about the evils of sportswashing, I don't suppose.

I am still amazed that the tribunal accepted there was a single reason for APT rules other than to stop Newcastle and City. The evidence put before them was weak imho (PL been discussing APTs since 2018 - why then I wonder? - but no formal discussions until post-Newcastle; UEFA's charges against City - which as we know were all thrown out; and the PL's case against City - which hasn't concluded so is no indication of any reason at all to do anything, if it is why not just deduct points now? Can't get my head around any of that. Especially as the PL, I don't think, can point to a single sponsorship that has subsequently been shown to be "evidently" above fmv. As I said, the tribunal needed fewer lawyers and more accountants :)

Anyway, Delaney is a funny little fella, isn't he?

For those that want to read it without giving him a click:


There are some crackers in it.
Click to expand...
Delaney says:

" There is simply exasperation at the manner that the club have gone against the very idea of the Premier League. Rivals are furious that City’s owners bought into the competition in the knowledge of what it was, aware of the rules"

But Miguel top tier football in England is controlled by the Premier League, if City wanted to participate, what choice did they have but to agree the Cartel rules? Which were then changed "by the majority' to be deliberately stacked against them.

Delaney continues;

"City are instead the first to take a case of this nature, and decide that they don’t need the rules to apply to them."

No Miguel, we have taken the case to prove that the rules as being applied against us were unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. And we proved that, irrefutably. A word you'll hopefully hear again very soon with regard to the 115 BS.
 
The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.

City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).

ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.
 
Always impressed how many of these club executives, supposedly so unhappy with City trying to take over the league, are never willing to put their name to it. "One board member said", "One club executive implied"..

The attempt to create a narrative that the whole league is against us on this when it's most likely just the usual Arsenal/Liverpool/rag executives briefing against us is comical.
 
adrianr said:
Always impressed how many of these club executives, supposedly so unhappy with City trying to take over the league, are never willing to put their name to it. "One board member said", "One club executive implied"..

The attempt to create a narrative that the whole league is against us on this when it's most likely just the usual Arsenal/Liverpool/rag executives briefing against us is comical.
Click to expand...
If they attributed these sources to the clubs making the statement then it would soon be apparent that generally it’s the same club(s) and would reinforce the view that there is cabal of clubs operating a mini cartel within the EPL
 
Last edited:
mancboy said:
to know its racism you inly 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.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why I had and always will have a problem with the taking the knee campaign following George Floyd’s death. It’s the rank hypocrisy. Not just of The Premier League but in many organisations. I grew up in Oldham. I’ve seen all aspects of racism. Most people, white, black whatever are racist to some degree. I say that because I’m sure most of us wouldn’t be happy if Irish Travellers pitched up opposite your house. It’s called being honest.

Manchester City’s fan base is mostly made up of people from deprived areas of the North West that are multi cultural and these protein stains have zero right to lecture any of us on racism. I can’t recall names unfortunately but a few black players refused to take the knee because they could see the nonsense for what it was too.

Anyway, this will probably end up triggering idiots so I’ll delete it soon.
 
Lord Blue said:
The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.

City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).

ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.
Click to expand...
When it was only 1 club that were threatening the "elite" clubs it was welcomed as a fairy story, still 4 CL places to scrap for, so the likes of Arsenal and Tottenham still had a chance of jumping on the gravy train, so the 4 became 5 , City turned up fucked up the chances for the likes of Arsenal and Spurs chances of regular CL football.
Newcastle have just fucked up their chances even further, but what has been shown is its all down to good club management , you only have to look at those complete fuckwits over in trafford that money doesn't mean everything , City are a self sustained club , which the stupid cunts who constantly slag the club off for cant see.
 
adrianr said:
Always impressed how many of these club executives, supposedly so unhappy with City trying to take over the league, are never willing to put their name to it. "One board member said", "One club executive implied"..

The attempt to create a narrative that the whole league is against us on this when it's most likely just the usual Arsenal/Liverpool/rag executives briefing against us is comical.
Click to expand...
Also, it’s possible that some of these other clubs who have been gullible enough to keep supporting the red shirt cartel clubs (and Spurs) might be having a re-think on their position.
 
Greenandblue said:
Delaney says:

" There is simply exasperation at the manner that the club have gone against the very idea of the Premier League. Rivals are furious that City’s owners bought into the competition in the knowledge of what it was, aware of the rules"

But Miguel top tier football in England is controlled by the Premier League, if City wanted to participate, what choice did they have but to agree the Cartel rules? Which were then changed "by the majority' to be deliberately stacked against them.

Delaney continues;

"City are instead the first to take a case of this nature, and decide that they don’t need the rules to apply to them."

No Miguel, we have taken the case to prove that the rules as being applied against us were unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. And we proved that, irrefutably. A word you'll hopefully hear again very soon with regard to the 115 BS.
Click to expand...

Amongst some of the more stupid comments. But in no way all of them.
 
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
Have costs been awarded yet?
Then say we have lost...

All this reminds me of when I moved school as a wee 13yr old. (Now 50)..Cock of the school thought he would just bully me constantly until one day I smacked the fucker so hard I broke my knuckles. He wasn't cock of the school anymore.
Click to expand...

SHB(E) Cock of Bluemoon!
 
very vague one liner on sky this morning that clubs are preparing to claim damages from City - what’s that about?
 
Lord Blue said:
The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.

City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).

ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.
Click to expand...
Not in my lifetime…

That’s why.
 
Lord Blue said:
The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.

City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).

ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.
Click to expand...
There were plenty of are Chelsea ruining football stories back in the early 2000s, especially when they won the league. But it was never a concerted campaign like the one we have been put under.

The reason... Mourinho was box office for the press and generated huge engagement numbers.
But the real reason was that the Champions League places were extended from 3 to 4 so everyone had a seat at the table.

The owners of Arsenal, United and Liverpool only care about that Champions League pot of gold and try everything possible (off the pitch) to avoid missing out.
 
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