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

cheekybids said:
“City are only winning because they have a hugely expensively assembled squad.”

“City will only be cleared because they have the best legal team money can buy.”
Click to expand...

blue b4 the moon said:
I've taken to pointing and laughing when those sort of lines are used.
Click to expand...
I love those lines. The first one because it describes what so many other clubs have done in the past, and the second because legal action was the off-pitch option available to the cartel and it failed thus boiling even more piss.
We've bought trophies; so what. That's been going on for almost a century in every league across the globe.
 
Roachy said:
And I think this is the big problem the PL have. They have to create a set of rules that remain within the boundaries of the law, but also ones that they think enough clubs will vote for. In relation to City and the ruling, I think the PL may have to eat a large slice of humble pie.
Click to expand...
City Forest Leicester Chelsea Newcastle Villa probably rowing the same way only want another one and they really have a problem.Could be Everton but not sure on new ownership.
 
Roy paul brother said:
City Forest Leicester Chelsea Newcastle Villa probably rowing the same way only want another one and they really have a problem.Could be Everton but not sure on new ownership.
Click to expand...
This is what annoys more than anything; vested interest instead of the good of the game. Just like the last government were for some and not the good of the country.
 
Roy paul brother said:
City Forest Leicester Chelsea Newcastle Villa probably rowing the same way only want another one and they really have a problem.Could be Everton but not sure on new ownership.
Click to expand...
Possibly. In relation to the ruling and the immediate aftermath of the ruling though, I think the PL were either incredibly naive or totally arrogant in thinking a tweak of the rules here or there would suffice. It will be very interesting what happens next.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Here's my take on it (if you consider me honest of course):
kingofthekippax.substack.com

PrestwichBlue’s Substack | Substack

My Substack replacing my King of the Kippax column. Write about football finance and politics mainly, particularly where these concern Manchester City. Click to read PrestwichBlue’s Substack, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.
kingofthekippax.substack.com kingofthekippax.substack.com
Click to expand...

Top work Peebs.
 
Roachy said:
And I think this is the big problem the PL have. They have to create a set of rules that remain within the boundaries of the law, but also ones that they think enough clubs will vote for. In relation to City and the ruling, I think the PL may have to eat a large slice of humble pie.
Click to expand...

If Masters is primarily driven to concoct rules that "enough" clubs will vote for, then the Premier League will fail, whether the rules be lawful or not.

Why?

Because a competent chairman would seek consensus before any vote was called, in fact the vote at the end of the process would hopefully be nothing more than a formality. Rules built around a consensus tend to work because all clubs have at least something invested in them, even if they may not be exactly what they wanted.

It's the job of a competent chairman to create such a consensus and ensure that the good of the league takes precedent over the desires of particular clubs, regardless of whether those clubs can cobble together a majority of 14 or not.

Rules, good, bad or indifferent, lawful or not, will not succeed if they clearly favour the majority at the expense of the minority, and the Premier League will completely collapse if these agenda driven rules repeatedly follow the same dividing lines time after time.
 
Roachy said:
Possibly. In relation to the ruling and the immediate aftermath of the ruling though, I think the PL were either incredibly naive or totally arrogant in thinking a tweak of the rules here or there would suffice. It will be very interesting what happens next.
Click to expand...

Not sure we are making a big enough deal out of it, tbh. If the APT rules are unlawful because they don't take into account interest on shareholder loans and are therefore null and void as City claim, then the same is also true of FFP/PSR for the same reasons.

Can you imagine the trouble that will cause. Points reinstated, league positions changed, claims for damages, 25 of the 115 allegations thrown out straight away. All sorts of unforeseen consequences. It will be fascinating to see what the tribunal says in its final award.

:)

I always wondered why Martin Samuel was talking about the demise of FFP/PSR in his first article about the APT judgment. Maybe he was well briefed ......

...... or maybe I am talking bollocks. :P
 
Nothing other than a structural reorganisation and refit,followed by an active and vigorous Regulator, will drain the swamp and build confidence in their ability to run the league.

Masters and the board,who are guilty of a dereliction of duty and incompetence,
will all have to be replaced by independent appointees.

The entire rule book will need to be independently reviewed and re written.

There are undoubtedly other matters that will need sorting,the principle one being that the cartel's malignant influence is stopped....

'Once and for all' !!
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure we are making a big enough deal out of it, tbh. If the APT rules are unlawful because they don't take into account interest on shareholder loans and are therefore null and void as City claim, then the same is also true of FFP/PSR for the same reasons.

Can you imagine the trouble that will cause. Points reinstated, league positions changed, claims for damages, 25 of the 115 allegations thrown out straight away. All sorts of unforeseen consequences. It will be fascinating to see what the tribunal says in its final award.

:)

I always wondered why Martin Samuel was talking about the demise of FFP/PSR in his first article about the APT judgment. Maybe he was well briefed ......

...... or maybe I am talking bollocks. :P
Click to expand...
This is completely true. I'm a total layman in relation to all this, but I do know that once something is deemed unlawful it can take a very long time to create and apply a suitable remedy.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure we are making a big enough deal out of it, tbh. If the APT rules are unlawful because they don't take into account interest on shareholder loans and are therefore null and void as City claim, then the same is also true of FFP/PSR for the same reasons.

Can you imagine the trouble that will cause. Points reinstated, league positions changed, claims for damages, 25 of the 115 allegations thrown out straight away. All sorts of unforeseen consequences. It will be fascinating to see what the tribunal says in its final award.

:)

I always wondered why Martin Samuel was talking about the demise of FFP/PSR in his first article about the APT judgment. Maybe he was well briefed ......

...... or maybe I am talking bollocks. :P
Click to expand...
Are you sure that follows I am not PSR is different to APT
 
Stoned Rose said:
Did anything come of the challenge we made in relation to the “14 votes is enough” rule?
Click to expand...
I thought it was something reported by the press when Arsenal leaked details to the press earlier this year, but don't remember seeing it mentioned in the panels judgement. It was probably a load of bollocks. But I may be wrong.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't know. What do you think this means?

View attachment 135505
Click to expand...
PSR and FFP pre date ATP so I don’t see how they have to back date anything or strike down FFP or PSR ATP is just a part of those rules. The premier league either brought in ATP for sinister reasons or to stop people circumventing PSR that’s not the same as the rules being so linked as to me the same or so similar that one being unlawful that the other is especially when in theory ATP can be re worked
 
WRicko said:
PSR and FFP pre date ATP so I don’t see how they have to back date anything or strike down FFP or PSR ATP is just a part of those rules. The premier league either brought in ATP for sinister reasons or to stop people circumventing PSR that’s not the same as the rules being so linked as to me the same or so similar that one being unlawful that the other is especially when in theory ATP can be re worked
Click to expand...

OK. We will see soon enough.
 
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