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

gordondaviesmoustache said:
He’s a fucking disgrace.
Click to expand...
How can you report on a legal hearing and not report what the Judges actually said in their summary? The PL lawyers winning some of the arguments is not the result of the case. As has been pointed out. If the PL have acted unlawfully, unfairly, and unreasonably that trumps everything. That’s how legal hearings work.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Huge consequences, yes. If, and it's still an if, of course, APT really is null and void since inception, then FFP/PSR will also, presumably, if challenged, be null and void for the same reasons. Can you imagine what a mess that would cause? Huge bargaining chip for the club, or any other club for that matter ....

Seemed to me that is what Samuel was hinting at.
Click to expand...

I'm not smart enough to understand all this law stuff. If another club challenged ffp and won would the 115 go away ?
 
meltonblue said:
We voted for the recommendation to be implemented that excluded them and then didn’t vote for the overall rules to be implemented. If we’d have thought at the time the principle of it was unlawful, we’d have surely abstained on voting for the recommendations.
Click to expand...
This is not quite correct, as I understand it.
The first vote was a vote in principle on the agenda ie what would the rules cover.
When the detailed draft rules came up for a vote we abstained and warned that we had legal advice that suggested the draft rules were not legal.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
The 'Haemeroid Clubs' want money afore success.

Success for them is getting the TV money, selling a homegrown player for profit & an occasional cup run.

It is Brighton & Brentfords declared m o.

Spurs are a shameful and shameless embarrassment who just want capital appreciation and dividends.

The cartel want minimum investment,maximum extraction and CL money.

None of them have City’s business plan, success, reinvestment strategy or global network.

None of them have City's debt free/loan free status.
Click to expand...
They are desperate to stay in PL as they are anticipating the advancement of technology that will provide a real time virtual stadium experience, sat anywhere in the world as though you are in the stadium City are ahead already with their collaboration with Sony with their FavouriteSpace app being the first step The ww audience would generate massive income
 
When (if at all) can we expect to hear about the remaining part of the tribunal decision. Costs and compensation.
 
The PL seems to be somewhat in disarray, not to say in rather a mess. Gone is the certainty that only a blue pencil is required to make the few slight adjustments required and it is recognised that time is "necessary" for the task, and the PL will take the time needed. Then proposals will be put to the FCAG and the PL will presumably vote on them. I suspect that since the PL's welcoming of the award as a victory and vindication of the regulations Masters has been told several times by the PL lawyers that the PL has dug itself into a hole and is still digging, that it has shown a readiness to ignore their advice on the law and that this has forced the legal team, eminent though they be, to defend a set of regulations clearly unlawful and unfair. The Leicester case had already shown the chaos and confusion around one set of regulations and the City case had shown that though the PL seemed to be reasonably good at knowing how to stitch up competitors for certain clubs, they had a tendency to be ignorant of what the law was regarding a whole range of transactions and competition. And over any new regulations is the brooding presence of Manchester City, certainly not blindfolded and waving the scales of justice with a nod and a wink at Mr Masters. Time to talk to clubs (the majority of whom seem to have had their fill of divisive rules and conflict), listen to the lawyers and do football a favour for once. They are supposed to be a governing body.
 
KS55 said:
This is not quite correct, as I understand it.
The first vote was a vote in principle on the agenda ie what would the rules cover.
When the detailed draft rules came up for a vote we abstained and warned that we had legal advice that suggested the draft rules were not legal.
Click to expand...

Not quite, we voted in favour of the recommendations being implemented, we then voted against the rules overall being implemented and reserved the right to challenge the legality of the rules and the FMV process. We didn’t abstain at any point.

Bear in mind it’s the principle itself of excluding shareholder loans that has been successfully considered unlawful.
 
Grassland Blue said:
The proof of this can be seen in the Glazers ownership of the rags.
Click to expand...
What the Glazers have done at the scum is pure economic genius - at least in the short and medium term - and the long term really doesn't matter when you're taking money out of the club hand-over-fist for nearly 20 years.
 
DenisLawBackHeel74 said:
I’ve been away all week so only really coming back to this news.

What seems significant is the letter Cliff wrote to the league of which the BBC seem to have seen or had a copy and chosen to paraphrase rather than produce in full…and then explain away the choice parts they’ve shown….as a result adding adding considerable confusion on my part to what the letter is actually about (other than the APT rules are illegal in their entirety).

I’m sure it was discussed in detail on here so could someone point me to the relevant pages..
Click to expand...
Start at 901
 
Rory Bluelow said:
Concerning Mancini, I think there was an obligation, at the time, to show all Manager remuneration on the books. It predated FFP. They will have to show his consultancy contract with the Abu Dhabi club was a sham - can’t see this going anywhere tbh.
Click to expand...

Rules at the time stated that a club had to register the managers contract. We did this. Any outside renumeration is between Mancini and the separate contracting company. Mancini could get a job flipping burgers on his off days if he wanted to and that isn’t the club’s business other than being reassured it wouldn’t conflict with his managerial duties - albeit not a great look for us :)

It’s not as if this arrangement was a secret at the time or that anyone cared. It is being used to show that this is what we could be doing with respect to other players/managers and that our books need to be trawled for evidence of wrong doing.

The 115 is a massive fishing expedition in the hope of finding something/anything to stick on us.
 
As someone pointed out the relationship between the PL, SKY and the BBC is highly incestuous. You only have to look at Mai Fyfield who painted herself as some sort of executive hero because she worked soo incredibly hard while rejecting our Ethihad sponsorship. Just look at her CV she's been an executive director at all three of them, and at some stages in her career at the same time !. It's now an all out legal war of attrition, thats until someone like the Minster of Sport or IR steps in and drains that cesspit and swamp of corruption aka as the Premier League executive.
 
SilverFox2 said:
In their eyes they only have to come up with something the gullible public will believe. They still have the majority of the media so as the journos used to say "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story".
This could go on and on now the media continue to lie by omission.
Click to expand...

That’s why we need to press for criminal charges.
 
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