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

[Gingers Dad]

Perhaps when they opened the envelope they got a rather nasty paper cut?

A very underrated injury

 

[Gingers Dad]

Would he play left back at his testimonial ?

I think he'd be on the bench

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Quite easy to understand really.

It’s unbelievably straightforward.

 

[Prater70]

Every time we arbitrate more evidence comes out about how City are treated compared to other members. I think it’s possible that we lay markers for th

He is an Arsenal fan ... they dont think , daddy and his trust fund does if for him...

Can i borrow some headed note paper please you insufferable bunch of twats

e future but don’t be surprised if even more proof of skulduggery by Masters & his cohorts comes out.

Let’s be honest we believe that the premier league were making deals with clubs to sway their vote. Why would they do that if they are independent.

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

Tyranny Of The Majority.?

 

[give it to gordon]

Your sueing again though. What does that say about the first lawsuit if you're going again? Why will this time be different. Why do you need to due again on the same event?

It's simple City won the first case and than the pl voted on and brought in rules that are still not legal. So now City are taking action against these 'new' rules.

The American cartel really want fucking off.

 

[Blueboy73]

It’s unbelievably straightforward.

Unless you're a Rag, a Dipper or a Tarquin.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

You clearly don't understand this a tall.
We won the main points in the first tribunal but as instructed by the judge's on the tribunal panel,we were supposed to have a meeting with the Premier League board and seek a amicable solution.
The Premier league in their wisdom, chose not to do this and brought another set of rules in without resolving the original dispute.
City told them at the time,that this was unlawful and they should wait for the final report from the tribunal panel.
The Premier league chose to ignore this advice hence we are back to the tribunal.
What do you find so hard to understand.
If the first draft is unlawful, it stands to reason the 2nd set is also unlawful ,until all parties, resolve the issues from draft 2
Capishe now !!@

Good post. If the Arsenal poster can’t understand that, there’s no hope for him. The PL took a big gamble on the legality of their new rules (difficult to understand why) and now it’s come back to bite them on the arse. I’m sure justice will prevail.

 

[manimanc]

Your sueing again though. What does that say about the first lawsuit if you're going again? Why will this time be different. Why do you need to due again on the same event?

This is how you and the other red mardarse red cartel fans view anything to do with us.


You won't listen to anything, you already have your opinion without listening to the facts, you view everything about us with negativity, in all honesty what the funk are you doing on a City forum when you can't stand us?

Fuckin odd.

 

[Bluewonder]

Your sueing again though. What does that say about the first lawsuit if you're going again? Why will this time be different. Why do you need to due again on the same event?

City have been targeted by with legal laws introduced by a corrupt organisation.

Why do you think they're suing, you daft dickhead?

 

[bigA]

Your sueing again though. What does that say about the first lawsuit if you're going again? Why will this time be different. Why do you need to due again on the same event?

What is says is that the rules are still unlawful therefore null and void. Yet the Premier League will insist on trying to implement them. And they are using the PSR stick to coerce clubs like Everton and Leicester to vote with them or suffer the consequences.

The APT/PSR thing is anti-competitive and like FFP is just another self-protectionist scheme for those "entitled" clubs like United, Liverpool and Arsenal who have seen City usurp them on and off the field and are now under serious threat from Newcastle from doing the same. My answer to those clubs is simple, don't get bitter, get better. Better investors, better infrastructure, better financial management, don't put the blame on your own misfortunes and mismanagement onto our club.

 

[burning blue soul]

and the PL tighten those rules. I guess we will have to wait until the results then.

It is almost emotional to read your posts. The faith you have in the decision makers running the Premier league is obvious and unshakable. Your automatic default viewpoint is that the league are honest in their handling of all members equally, and they have no ulterior motives or agendas.
It is what my default setting was when I was young. I wish I could still have the naive opinion and blind faith you have.
But, unfortunately, i cant anymore. Knowledge comes with a price, and I can smell, feel, and taste the corruption.
If you want to know the gruesome truth, come on to a City forum and believe the information, because there is a rotten core at the heart of football, just as there is in any high value entity. Humans are built that way. Money drives greed which drives dishonesty.
I don't know which is a worse situation, to know the horrible truth, or to insulate yourself in bullshit

This is how City fans view the football authorities


This is how everyone else is taught to view them

Open your eyes.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Your sueing again though. What does that say about the first lawsuit if you're going again? Why will this time be different. Why do you need to due again on the same event?

I stopped reading at sueing.

Are all blud fams thick as fuck or is just the ones on here?

 

[Stoned Rose]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

Are you genuinely saying clubs should just crack on if the majority agree to something even if what they are agreeing to is (as ruled in the previous hearing) “unlawful” and “unreasonable”?

It’s called thinking for yourself you thick ****.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Are you genuinely saying clubs should just crack on if the majority agree to something even if what they are agreeing to is (as ruled in the previous hearing) “unlawful” and “unreasonable”?

It’s called thinking for yourself you thick ****.

The bigs guns have arrived in the thread.

 

[nmc]

I must say I am struggling with this narrative that the club are involved in some top level Berting with the PL over this new action. Maybe I am being naive and the club has finally snapped, but, personally, I think this has to be part of a bigger strategy that we just aren't able to determine from out here.

Otherwise, it seems to me we asked the greatest legal mind in English legal history for advice and got a sponge bag in response. Struggling with that, tbh.

I’m not sure I agree with Stefan here. The fact the original Tribunal gave some sort of support for an APT process I.e. introducing a process to assess sponsorship deals ahead of them being put in place - does not mean that they are supportive of the overall process that has been actually put in place - in fact quite the opposite the Tribunal were quite scathing about some of the specifics. In terms of the Nov / Dec amendments I’d be interested to see how a Tribunal will assess the different treatment of sponsorship and shareholder loans - retrospectively that’s hardly a level playing field and the PL will have little defence for the differing treatment other than a few Execs at specific clubs not liking any retrospective action.

 

[nmc]

Are you genuinely saying clubs should just crack on if the majority agree to something even if what they are agreeing to is (as ruled in the previous hearing) “unlawful” and “unreasonable”?

It’s called thinking for yourself you thick ****.

But, that’s effectively the modus operandi under Masters - so long as the US clubs vote for it - it’s okay. Tyranny of the majority in action.

 

[shnaghaicityfish]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

As has already been pointed out the original rules have been found to be illegal by a panel of independent eminent judges. We believe the “new” rules that were rushed through are also illegal.
Cartels are also illegal, and in any other industry the Serious Fraud Office would be all over you and your red mates; the infamous photo of you all plotting over dinner would be damning enough evidence.
Simples.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Look, this guy may believe the crap he's peddling or is just on the wind up, but if he and others believe that the PL 'won' at the first one - where did they get that opinion from? Who influenced it? Of course the answer is simple but even after all of this is settled people like him/her will still believe the bullshit they are fed through red tops, broadsheets and fan sites like 365.
There really is no hope for them. It should be very humbling ;-)

 

[johnevans]

A Liverpool fan has just posted this on a Golf Forum I’m on .

All the clubs voted on these rules

Why can’t they respect the wishes of all the clubs.

Interesting. A couple of weeks back I was in conversation with legal colleagues who support other clubs (Stockport, Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal respectively)

Similar sentiments were expressed about City's response to the first RPT 'judgement' and City's overall general response to the ongoing UEFA/PL farrago over recent years.

I just pointed out, though rather obliquely it might have seemed seemed at first, that for example, in 1934, the German nation went to the polls and 38M out of 42M of them voted 'Yes' to combining the Chancellorship and Presidency in order to enable that laugh-a-minute, crazy-guy, crazy-moustachioed Adolf Hitler to adopt total power (I know I shouldn't but I I find historical precedents everywhere I look since I went to university all those years ago..!)

I added that with the benefit of hindsight, that 'majority decision' didn't turn out so well for everyone now, did it?

To be fair to him, the Evertonian did say 'I take your point'..

These Red Cartel followers are unable to understand this stuff we discuss on here, either because they are too tribal or are being deliberately obtuse. They're not worth mithering with..!

 

[117 M34]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

If 14 clubs in the league voted that teams whose name begins with the letter A start the season on -20 points, do you think arsenal would be taking that to court?