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

Sky Sports "back pages" tonight, two Geordie Hacks, Hardy and Hope, (should have a hopeless in there) failing to condemn the APT rules and both pronouncing Masters as "Marsters" what a pair of wankers.

Didn't give any credence to what we've done to enhance Newcastle's future prospects by challenging the PL, no criticism of Masters and the red shirts plus Spuds, agenda is very clear.

Dodgy box btw, not giving them anymore of my cash.
 
Fwiw, my assessment of the situation after what (we think) we know happened in the meeting:

The tribunal gave the two parties time to agree what to do next.

The parties can't agree and so have asked the tribunal to determine the status of the APT rules and what should happen next.

No judgment yet, as far as we know, so the PL is sensibly getting on with amending the rules to make them lawful.

The big question, though, remains unanswered. Are the rules null and void as City suggest? Or just unlawful from the time of the initial judgment and therefore unenforceable until new lawful rules are passed, as the PL suggest.

It seems the PL now recognises that the PSR rules are also at risk of being unlawful for the inconsistency in treatment of shareholder loans and so are looking to change them, but the same big questions arise on that issue as well. Also, some clubs may not look favourably on having to capitalise loans or face having new loan agreements forced on them going forward with PSR consequences.

Still a bit of a mess.

I think.

Possibly :)
 
hammocity said:
Sky Sports "back pages" tonight, two Geordie Hacks, Hardy and Hope, (should have a hopeless in there) failing to condemn the APT rules and both pronouncing Masters as "Marsters" what a pair of wankers.

Didn't give any credence to what we've done to enhance Newcastle's future prospects by challenging the PL, no criticism of Masters and the red shirts plus Spuds, agenda is very clear.

Dodgy box btw, not giving them anymore of my cash.
Click to expand...
It’s funny to see you comment on a thread about financial impropriety, where you watch Sky, complain about how bad their coverage is about APT and Masters, and then tell us all you are stealing the content on a “dodgy box.”

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fwiw, my assessment of the situation after what (we think) we know happened in the meeting:

The tribunal gave the two parties time to agree what to do next.

The parties can't agree and so have asked the tribunal to determine the status of the APT rules and what should happen next.

No judgment yet, as far as we know, so the PL is sensibly getting on with amending the rules to make them lawful.

The big question, though, remains unanswered. Are the rules null and void as City suggest? Or just unlawful from the time of the initial judgment and therefore unenforceable until new lawful rules are passed, as the PL suggest.

It seems the PL now recognises that the PSR rules are also at risk of being unlawful for the inconsistency in treatment of shareholder loans and so are looking to change them, but the same big questions arise on that issue as well. Also, some clubs may not look favourably on having to capitalise loans or face having new loan agreements forced on them going forward with PSR consequences.

Still a bit of a mess.

I think.

Possibly :)
Click to expand...

Have the premier league provided feedback why the Etihad sponsorship was rejected? Surely this was the simplest action that the panel expected the premier league to provide & shouldn’t have taken longer than 7 days from the judgement which is over a month ago.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
It’s funny to see you comment on a thread about financial impropriety, where you watch Sky, complain about how bad their coverage is about APT and Masters, and then tell us all you are stealing the content on a “dodgy box.”

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Its like rain on your wedding day
 
Are they putting their heads in the sand here! Oh we just vote and it be all ok!?

"One club executive insisted it was likely that at least 14 of the 20 clubs would vote for the amendments and in effect keep APT rules."
 
ChicagoBlue said:
It’s funny to see you comment on a thread about financial impropriety, where you watch Sky, complain about how bad their coverage is about APT and Masters, and then tell us all you are stealing the content on a “dodgy box.”

Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
A little too ironic, yes I really do think.

It's like rain......
 
waspish said:
Are they putting their heads in the sand here! Oh we just vote and it be all ok!?

"One club executive insisted it was likely that at least 14 of the 20 clubs would vote for the amendments and in effect keep APT rules."
Click to expand...

Which will be fine as long as the rules are LAWFUL and not UNREASONABLE.
 
manimanc said:
news.sky.com

How Man City's fight to fend off spending restrictions is ripping the Premier League apart

Premier League clubs have held talks to reconfigure rules related to losses and income - with the meeting necessary after City's lawyers convinced a panel that aspects of the regulations were in breach of competition law.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

And here is something completely different....

We're indirectly responsible for ripping the Premier League apart?

I am absolutely lost for words. The shite way we've been treated by the Premier League? Yeah ok then.
Click to expand...
The entire article is framed in a manner hostile to City.

It reads like it was drafted by Masters himself.

It is client journalism in sport at its worst.
 
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