I think they (PL) will feel it is their right to decide what panel decisions will be then have votes on their (not legal) interpretation.Truth.
The rolling back of the 2024 changes is good, but I think whether City have "won" or not depends on whether the new Etihad deal is effective or not. I am not clear whether the assessment of the deal being set aside by the tribunal means that the deal is now effective or whether the PL can now re-assess the deal under these new (in the PL's view) lawful rules.
On the wider point of the lawfulness of the new rules, as you say we have to wait for the tribunal's upcoming judgment before that can be determined. Publication of the new rules doesn't really mean anything in isolation, other than that the PL are still doing it their unilateral way.
Yes I understand that bit. I'm talking about last night's tweet.
Posters are treating it as the tribunal have made a new ruling and it's a win fir City.
It isn't.
That is why no media outlets are covering it.
I'm not sure why the tweet was posted (no offence slbsn)
I think they (PL) will feel it is their right to decide what panel decisions will be then have votes on their (not legal) interpretation.
Bit by bit they will be corrected as indeed bit by bit they demonstrate they are still in charge.
Do you think that until rule changes et al are validated by their legal people we will continue with their legal try ons?
To be fair I suppose the PL had to do something for Rule Book purposes in the absense of Panel decisions which may or may not be waiting for 130 decisions.The PL think the problem is solved now, but we still don't know what the tribunal has said / will say about the question both parties asked: how do we proceed from here? Maybe the tribunal has found / will find in favour of the PL approach, but maybe it hasn't / won't. So we will have to wait and see.
I don't think what the PL wants is anything to do with the tribunal decision although I suppose they may try to present their solution as a fait accompli.
I think a win for City that just might get media attention would be if the tribunal say the old rules were null and void and so are the new ones, and City get most of their costs paid by the PL.Yes I understand that bit. I'm talking about last night's tweet.
Posters are treating it as the tribunal have made a new ruling and it's a win fir City.
It isn't.
That is why no media outlets are covering it.
I'm not sure why the tweet was posted (no offence slbsn)
I doubt it. If the tribunal says the new rules are still unlawful then I guess City might go straight to asking for injunctive relief and damages (and I assume that if the PL ignored an injunction that would be contempt of court).I think they (PL) will feel it is their right to decide what panel decisions will be then have votes on their (not legal) interpretation.
Bit by bit they will be corrected as indeed bit by bit they demonstrate they are still in charge.
Do you think that until rule changes et al are validated by their legal people we will continue with their legal try ons?
Blimey, flashbacks to Billy Bunter, the fat accomplice…The PL think the problem is solved now, but we still don't know what the tribunal has said / will say about the question both parties asked: how do we proceed from here? Maybe the tribunal has found / will find in favour of the PL approach, but maybe it hasn't / won't. So we will have to wait and see.
I don't think what the PL wants is anything to do with the tribunal decision although I suppose they may try to present their solution as a fait accompli.
Can we take those points and deduct them from clubs we would like to relegate too?When we win we should be awarded 115 PL points to be used as we see fit over this and the next 3 seasons.
Glad to hear there may be some UK legal method to stop the US based clubs defying UK legal principles.I doubt it. If the tribunal says the new rules are still unlawful then I guess City might go straight to asking for injunctive relief and damages (and I assume that if the PL ignored an injunction that would be contempt of court).
#604. Injunctive relief and damages are also sought. We reserve our jurisdiction to grant such relief. We do not [do] so in this Award because we heard no submissions as to such relief and in any event we consider that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in the light of our conclusions.
#605. We also reserve all questions of costs.
Blimey, flashbacks to Billy Bunter, the fat accomplice…
UEFA are not all on the same page but the cartel as with the PL hold the power. Going to UEFA is not about getting support, it is about spreading the liability, we will win the 23 at some stage, so UEFA will find it difficult to deny liability if we ask them for a ruling on the PL`s unauthorized actions, their member.We'll get no help from UEFA seeing as they are the red cartel bitches as well. This will have to go to the high court despite all the Premier League's rule X bollocks preventing that. But we need other clubs to join us and not let us fight the battle for them alone. If they want they same as us, they have to fight with us. No if, no buts, no excuses.
It ain't really, the longer it takes the more money they takeSurely the lazy fuckers on the panel have had time to clarify their position. It’s a fucking joke this is still ongoing.
It ain't really, the longer it takes the more money they take
And this is on one relatively straightforward matter. The belief that we’re going to get a judgment on the 115/130 case by the end of January seems fanciful at best.Surely the lazy fuckers on the panel have had time to clarify their position. It’s a fucking joke this is still ongoing.
Well i think you answered your own question. 23 claims unproven is not, 23 no evidence to support. The panel will be looking for a path to navigate through, where they can give the PL what they want, with the panel keeping their integrity, should City win the 23 at a later date.Glad this got mentioned again.
wtf is going on with this decision?
Just think of the mess 115 is going to leave.
Why was the judgment published without explaining the decision on certain topics? Instead it was twisted depending what side you are on.
Legal obscurity leads to nothing but speculation and that’s how they work. Nothing is clear cut. Who can spin the best story bending facts and using case law.
Football? What’s that?