Completely agree on the NFL not being relevant. But isn't the perspective on most leagues in Europe being 'farmers leagues'? Psg Madrid Bayern celtic etc. it's almost like this is a wider problem than just the pl.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
As I understand:Is it new judges? I thought it was the original judges but if it’s new I’m asking why did it get to this.
City take PL to court over APT rules.
Case won.
PL produce new rules voted in favour by 16 clubs.
City declare that the whole rulebook since 2021 is null and void.
PL agree that only a tribunal can decide who is now correct.
Tribunal appointed. Case completed in December. Decision expected Feb.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,889
As I understand:
City take PL to court over APT rules.
Case won.
PL produce new rules voted in favour by 16 clubs.
City declare that the whole rulebook since 2021 is null and void.
PL agree that only a tribunal can decide who is now correct.
Tribunal appointed. Case completed in December. Decision expected Feb.
Appreciated, I just felt the first step wasn’t clear when they both claimed victory.
Yes. This is the reason for the tribunal. City believe the whole rulebook is null and void. The PL believe they can rewrite only the disputed 'sections'.Appreciated, I just felt the first step wasn’t clear when they both claimed victory.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
I didn't see compensation mentioned in the article. I'd like to think we are due a little boost to the transfer kitty for any disallowed sponsorship(s) and all the inconvenience caused.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
According to that Times article it's the same panel holding a two-day hearing next week and issuing their judgment in February.Is it new judges? I thought it was the original judges but if it’s new I’m asking why did it get to this.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,889
According to that Times article it's the same panel holding a two-day hearing next week and issuing their judgment in February.
That’s what I thought & i was asking if the original judges saw how the premier league had acted it should ruled on this.
That's true, but I don't think they are the same judges who originally heard the APT case.According to that Times article it's the same panel holding a two-day hearing next week and issuing their judgment in February.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
Well they are the same three who issued the previous judgment in October.That's true, but I don't think they are the same judges who originally heard the APT case.
Sir Nigel Teare, Christopher Vajda KC, Lord Dyson
Fair enough, even though I find that rather bizarre, like an employment tribunal being headed by the person who dismissed you, I imagine that it will work in our favour - they have already deemed the APT rules unlawful. It should also 'speed' the process.Well they are the same three who issued the previous judgment in October.
Sir Nigel Teare, Christopher Vajda KC, Lord Dyson
Last edited:
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,889
Fair enough. Even though I find that rather bizarre, like an employment tribunal being headed by the person that dismissed you, I imagine that it will work in our favour - they have already deemed the APT rules unlawful. It should also 'speed' the process.
That’s why I was saying it could & should have been resolved earlier but you guided me on process. I felt the original judges gave too much credit to the premier league for e.g. May Fyfield & the deliberate treatment & targeting of the premier league. I’m hoping they’ll be pissed off with Premier leagues actions since.
You're right. The process is as I said. The judges, as you did!That’s why I was saying it could & should have been resolved earlier but you guided me on process. I felt the original judges gave too much credit to the premier league for e.g. May Fyfield & the deliberate treatment & targeting of the premier league. I’m hoping they’ll be pissed off with Premier leagues actions since.
As I understand:
City take PL to court over APT rules.
Case won.
PL produce new rules voted in favour by 16 clubs.
City declare that the whole rulebook since 2021 is null and void.
PL agree that only a tribunal can decide who is now correct.
Tribunal appointed. Case completed in December. Decision expected Feb.
Presumuably the previous rules were also passed by a majority vote but that didn't make them legal, so why does the fact that the new one's were voted through give them any more legitimacy than the last one's? Question isn't aimed at you btw
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
Tyranny of the majority, as someone once saidPresumuably the previous rules were also passed by a majority vote but that didn't make them legal, so why does the fact that the new one's were voted through give them any more legitimacy than the last one's? Question isn't aimed at you btw
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the modified rule change by PL can be an example of their wish to target just City?It was getting time to settle this. Judgment published in a month for a two-day hearing is about right, I suppose.
Still think there maybe a few nasty surprises for the PL out of this. Fingers crossed :)
Edit for those who want to read it: https://archive.ph/NkJI1
We await the result of legality or not but at least now the PL must obey their own rules which no doubt have a history of biased process over the years. Plenty for further action in the past if they don't continue legally in the future
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Which may not exist anymore if the article linked in the previous one is correct. Every man for themselves?Tyranny of the majority, as someone once said
Centurions
Well-Known Member
They're being asked to clarify some pretty major points, surely it could only be the original judges, otherwise we'd be sitting here until kingdom come.Fair enough, even though I find that rather bizarre, like an employment tribunal being headed by the person who dismissed you, I imagine that it will work in our favour - they have already deemed the APT rules unlawful. It should also 'speed' the process.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I see the Times has twisted the narrative away from “clubs fear the impact of state-owned clubs to” to “the impact of state-connected or those with multi-club ownerships.” In other words they fear fair legal competition.It was getting time to settle this. Judgment published in a month for a two-day hearing is about right, I suppose.
Still think there maybe a few nasty surprises for the PL out of this. Fingers crossed :)
Edit for those who want to read it: https://archive.ph/NkJI1
That's fair.They're being asked to clarify some pretty major points, surely it could only be the original judges, otherwise we'd be sitting here until kingdom come.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Do you think they left certain points vague deliberately to perhaps let the dust settle?That's fair.
Little by little they are forcing legality on PL thereby getting the PL influence on the media to accept a lower than a "hanged, drawn and quartered" verdict on City.