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

Moss Side's Finest said:
You have either misunderstood my sentiment, or you are a buffoon. I know that's what City are saying. But I don't believe the delays have been caused by the club, they have been manufactured by the Premier League and previously UEFA.

If you make such complex and serious allegations, it takes lots of time to have to form a defence, which is what we've done, only to then be accused of delay tactics. To add insult to injury, the prosecution are now taking their time in issuing a verdict, whilst all the time the media continue to blame us for the delays.

What I am saying is that, until the final verdict show's we're not officially guilty, the media will continue their free for all. And that most certainly is damaging to City's brand.

There are millions of potential fans and sponsors out there who likely believe the slander being dished out.

Until we are proven not guilty there is little to nothing we can do about it. It's very much in the clubs interest that this goes away asap.
Click to expand...

Calling @oakiecokie a bufoon is akin to trying to stare out the hardest man in Strangeways whilst wearing a pink negligee and ankle socks.
 
So - if the original tribunal has been meeting again (IF...) does anyone know what exactly they're looking at? They'd already granted City declaratory relief - declaring the rules unlawful so City won the case - but reserved the right to grant injunctive relief and damages. They didn't do that, instead saying that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in light of our conclusions.

So is this the tribunal hearing what the PL and City have already agreed then granting City the agreed amount of damages, or have the PL played silly beggars and are still pretending they won? (And in passing, the tribunal may say whether the new rules are lawful... And their original judgment should have clearly said it meant the rules were null and void from the start.)
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
So - if the original tribunal has been meeting again (IF...) does anyone know what exactly they're looking at? They'd already granted City declaratory relief - declaring the rules unlawful so City won the case - but reserved the right to grant injunctive relief and damages. They didn't do that, instead saying that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in light of our conclusions.

So is this the tribunal hearing what the PL and City have already agreed then granting City the agreed amount of damages, or have the PL played silly beggars and are still pretending they won? (And in passing, the tribunal may say whether the new rules are lawful... And their original judgment should have clearly said it meant the rules were null and void from the start.)
Click to expand...
Your guess is as good as ours we have to wait but I can't see how we get more than a fine at most.
 
Moss Side's Finest said:
You have either misunderstood my sentiment, or you are a buffoon. I know that's what City are saying. But I don't believe the delays have been caused by the club, they have been manufactured by the Premier League and previously UEFA.

If you make such complex and serious allegations, it takes lots of time to have to form a defence, which is what we've done, only to then be accused of delay tactics. To add insult to injury, the prosecution are now taking their time in issuing a verdict, whilst all the time the media continue to blame us for the delays.

What I am saying is that, until the final verdict show's we're not officially guilty, the media will continue their free for all. And that most certainly is damaging to City's brand.

There are millions of potential fans and sponsors out there who likely believe the slander being dished out.

Until we are proven not guilty there is little to nothing we can do about it. It's very much in the clubs interest that this goes away asap.
Click to expand...
Mate, your sentiment was correct, even if the thread might not have been. But nevertheless, your sentiment was that ongoing legal or arbitral cases, no matter who brought them and who might be defending them, are damaging to the club, because whilst they continue, the assumption of City's guilt remains. I can't see how City fans can disagree with that.
 
Paladin said:
Mate, your sentiment was correct, even if the thread might not have been. But nevertheless, your sentiment was that ongoing legal or arbitral cases, no matter who brought them and who might be defending them, are damaging to the club, because whilst they continue, the assumption of City's guilt remains. I can't see how City fans can disagree with that.
Click to expand...
I was disagreeing because he got caught up in the wrong thread. No-one is questioning the damage ref the 115 so called charges, but we have not been charged with anything connected to this thread title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
oakiecokie said:
I was disagreeing because he got caught up in the wrong thread. No-one is questioning the damage ref the 115 so called charges, but we have not been charged with anything connected to this thread title.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know, I've read back on the thread. @Moss Side's Finest responded to a post about the pending 115 case by expressing an opinion that the undecided cases were damaging to City. You said that his comment was "Absolute nonsense".

I'm merely expressing my own opinion, which is that I agree with his sentiment. It's no biggie. We're on an open forum. Different opinions are what this is all about.
 
Paladin said:
Yes, I know, I've read back on the thread. @Moss Side's Finest responded to a post about the pending 115 case by expressing an opinion that the undecided cases were damaging to City. You said that his comment was "Absolute nonsense".

I'm merely expressing my own opinion, which is that I agree with his sentiment. It's no biggie. We're on an open forum. Different opinions are what this is all about.
Click to expand...
He certainly wasn`t clear ref the 115 charges and I was merely saying that his post was nonsense, based on what he had written under this thread as did the other 14 people who sent "likes" to me.
Its NOT the first time people have got confused with the two issues and the threads ... for some unknown reason.
 
oakiecokie said:
He certainly wasn`t clear ref the 115 charges and I was merely saying that his post was nonsense, based on what he had written under this thread as did the other 14 people who sent "likes" to me.
Its NOT the first time people have got confused with the two issues and the threads ... for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...
Well, he wasn't really in the wrong thread, because he was replying to someone on this thread, talking about the APT case still being unresolved.

Post: What a shit show that this has been allowed to drag on as it has with hearings, rulings & still no one the wiser.

Reply: The longer it drags on, the more damaging it is to City, that's a win for many of our detractors.

You: Absolute nonsense...

His sentiments are that the "show" (referred to by the person he was quoting) dragging on, is damaging to City. This is a perfectly acceptable opinion, whether it is about the 115 charges or the APT case. Also, @Moss Side's Finest didn't specify which case he was referring to, so it was wrong to accuse him of talking "absolute nonsense".

However, since 14 other people have endorsed your comment, that must mean @Moss Side's Finest was wrong, you were right, and your aggressive behaviour is quite justified.
 
cheekybids said:
If the trainee solicitor is being taught the law by this buffoon, it’s gonna be a short career… & deserves the “Adam Teese” treatment.

1 Churchill bust on its way……
Click to expand...
Ha, I had to Google that. 14 or 15 years now, I wonder if he's still receiving pizzas or has he been banned by all local takeaways?
 
Paladin said:
Well, he wasn't really in the wrong thread, because he was replying to someone on this thread, talking about the APT case still being unresolved.

Post: What a shit show that this has been allowed to drag on as it has with hearings, rulings & still no one the wiser.

Reply: The longer it drags on, the more damaging it is to City, that's a win for many of our detractors.

You: Absolute nonsense...

His sentiments are that the "show" (referred to by the person he was quoting) dragging on, is damaging to City. This is a perfectly acceptable opinion, whether it is about the 115 charges or the APT case. Also, @Moss Side's Finest didn't specify which case he was referring to, so it was wrong to accuse him of talking "absolute nonsense".

However, since 14 other people have endorsed your comment, that must mean @Moss Side's Finest was wrong, you were right, and your aggressive behaviour is quite justified.
Click to expand...
 
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