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

ChicagoBlue said:
Personally, i think Ciry are trying to make a few points here.

1) The rules were deemed illegal and they wanted them thrown out. The PL said they weren’t and have moved to change some aspects of them to mollify the Panel while not endangering their relationships with those clubs running the cartel.

2) City were checked for some commercial deals deemed to lucrative. They don’t believe they were and don’t believe they should have to prove they’re legal, but rather someone else should have to prove they’re ILlegal. That puts the boot on the other foot and means the League is on the back foot, not City, and that City don’t have to prove every penny to every club every season.

3) City feel their historic run should warrant historic deals, yet everyone seems to believe that because City are not Liverpool, United or Arsenal that they couldn’t possibly deserve such large deals, even though they have not only been the best team in the League by a country mile for years, but are the halo club of a global football group…and the ONLY club with a serious global football group, so far.

4) If City don’t strike their deals while sitting at the apex of world football, they miss the opportunity to leverage the success to the hilt, and any charges against them that do stick might reduce or negate their ability to do so. This means current (or recent) commercial deals need to be of sufficient magnitude to weather any such storm.

5) The PL and the Red Cartel are trying whatever they can to blunt that practice.

6) The Ownership Loans have not been dealt with AT ALL, because the 14 club majority are involved up to their necks and don’t have the money, or PSR headroom, to pay the interest or pay back the loans, to level the financial playing field. It is hilarious and not a little ironic that pointers at other clubs and the lazy journalists all like to tout Mansour and his oil money, yet CITY are of the few who have NOT had their hands in the owners pockets…and we have the proof!

View attachment 145975

City want rules that are fair and do not require them to prove every penny every time, but rather have someone else prove they’re not legal. That would be an ongoing cost to City and bringing their beggar bowl to the PL every year, as opposed to the PL having to bring their legal team to City to not only say, but prove, they’re running an illegal operation!
Click to expand...
Top post CB.
 
nmc said:
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.
Click to expand...
Play it out. Lets say City are correct and it is all null and void and needs re-writing. The new version will likely look a lot like the November version but potentially with tweaked rules on loans. What are City trying to get to on shareholder loans? Reopening historic years for Everton? Charging Everton for bigger breaches? Even if it possible for the PL (unclear under the rules), for what point? They will get full mitigation where they did something that was permitted by the rules at the time. So it all appears pointless to me on shareholder loans. Again if it simply about 24/25 (ie a season not yet assessed), again, this only affects Everton and, at a squeeze, Forest. But again they will just get mitigation in full given they couldn't possibly have known the PL rules were unlawful.

So, aside from making a point, causing trouble, what are City actually trying to get to.
 
ArtetaTechnicalArea said:
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?
Click to expand...
City and the PL will likely have had clarification on the previous ruling by now I am assuming that the PL is refusing to implement the advice.
 
slbsn said:
Play it out. Lets say City are correct and it is all null and void and needs re-writing. The new version will likely look a lot like the November version but potentially with tweaked rules on loans. What are City trying to get to on shareholder loans? Reopening historic years for Everton? Charging Everton for bigger breaches? Even if it possible for the PL (unclear under the rules), for what point? They will get full mitigation where they did something that was permitted by the rules at the time. So it all appears pointless to me on shareholder loans. Again if it simply about 24/25 (ie a season not yet assessed), again, this only affects Everton and, at a squeeze, Forest. But again they will just get mitigation in full given they couldn't possibly have known the PL rules were unlawful.

So, aside from making a point, causing trouble, what are City actually trying to get to.
Click to expand...
If you don't no mate.
I am funked if I do. :)
 
sky tot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Clubs have voted on a ruling that clubs wearing red shirts based in the Merseyside region of the Uk won't be eligible to play in the completion from next season onwards Can't see anything wrong with that
 
waspish said:
What gets me is the majority of premier clubs decided to amend the rules BEFORE the results from the apt have come out! Tells you everything about these club owners
Click to expand...
Not amend. Adapted the unlawful and void rules in the hope that the new rules would be lawful.

That will presumably be part of the tribunal's job (to decide if the N̈EW rules are lawful) but even if they are the panel will still be deciding on the amount of damages City get for being penalised ùnder the original unlawful rules.
 
johnevans said:
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..!
Click to expand...
Andy Dufresne doesn’t like this post.
 
slbsn said:
Play it out. Lets say City are correct and it is all null and void and needs re-writing. The new version will likely look a lot like the November version but potentially with tweaked rules on loans. What are City trying to get to on shareholder loans? Reopening historic years for Everton? Charging Everton for bigger breaches? Even if it possible for the PL (unclear under the rules), for what point? They will get full mitigation where they did something that was permitted by the rules at the time. So it all appears pointless to me on shareholder loans. Again if it simply about 24/25 (ie a season not yet assessed), again, this only affects Everton and, at a squeeze, Forest. But again they will just get mitigation in full given they couldn't possibly have known the PL rules were unlawful.

So, aside from making a point, causing trouble, what are City actually trying to get to.
Click to expand...
I did wonder if city might be trying to get the apt rules as a whole scrapped, but actually they are probably quite handy now for city in terms of restraining the spending of other clubs with rich owners, and to stop others restructuring debt. Maybe it's just making a point that we'll only accept rules that are legally sound?
 
Fordyboy46 said:
That's how I see it, with Viana at the helm now he's started the overhaul. But the cartel supporters say no no, it's because we're getting a transfer ban when we're found guilty so we are spending now. They know everything about this 115 bs, the red cartel
Click to expand...
The media client journalists are clutching at anything, shifting now from points deductions and titles stripped to now transfer bans.Even if I take my blue goggles off, we're gonna look incredibly stupid splurging over 200m with wages and agent fees,Erlings deal,new stand if we're playing Oldham next season.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Personally, i think Ciry are trying to make a few points here.

1) The rules were deemed illegal and they wanted them thrown out. The PL said they weren’t and have moved to change some aspects of them to mollify the Panel while not endangering their relationships with those clubs running the cartel.

2) City were checked for some commercial deals deemed to lucrative. They don’t believe they were and don’t believe they should have to prove they’re legal, but rather someone else should have to prove they’re ILlegal. That puts the boot on the other foot and means the League is on the back foot, not City, and that City don’t have to prove every penny to every club every season.

3) City feel their historic run should warrant historic deals, yet everyone seems to believe that because City are not Liverpool, United or Arsenal that they couldn’t possibly deserve such large deals, even though they have not only been the best team in the League by a country mile for years, but are the halo club of a global football group…and the ONLY club with a serious global football group, so far.

4) If City don’t strike their deals while sitting at the apex of world football, they miss the opportunity to leverage the success to the hilt, and any charges against them that do stick might reduce or negate their ability to do so. This means current (or recent) commercial deals need to be of sufficient magnitude to weather any such storm.

5) The PL and the Red Cartel are trying whatever they can to blunt that practice.

6) The Ownership Loans have not been dealt with AT ALL, because the 14 club majority are involved up to their necks and don’t have the money, or PSR headroom, to pay the interest or pay back the loans, to level the financial playing field. It is hilarious and not a little ironic that pointers at other clubs and the lazy journalists all like to tout Mansour and his oil money, yet CITY are of the few who have NOT had their hands in the owners pockets…and we have the proof!

View attachment 145975

City want rules that are fair and do not require them to prove every penny every time, but rather have someone else prove they’re not legal. That would be an ongoing cost to City and bringing their beggar bowl to the PL every year, as opposed to the PL having to bring their legal team to City to not only say, but prove, they’re running an illegal operation!
Click to expand...
I agree. This is a serious long term strategic move.
 
slbsn said:
Play it out. Lets say City are correct and it is all null and void and needs re-writing. The new version will likely look a lot like the November version but potentially with tweaked rules on loans. What are City trying to get to on shareholder loans? Reopening historic years for Everton? Charging Everton for bigger breaches? Even if it possible for the PL (unclear under the rules), for what point? They will get full mitigation where they did something that was permitted by the rules at the time. So it all appears pointless to me on shareholder loans. Again if it simply about 24/25 (ie a season not yet assessed), again, this only affects Everton and, at a squeeze, Forest. But again they will just get mitigation in full given they couldn't possibly have known the PL rules were unlawful.

So, aside from making a point, causing trouble, what are City actually trying to get to.
Click to expand...
That depends. City think the new rules are unlawful, so we'll want a ruling to that effect. (Do we actually know the club's reasoning for saying the new rules are unlawful, e.g. on shareholder loans, or associated party transactions?)

But they'll certainly want the damages that the panel hoped might be negotiated out of court, perhaps with aggravated damages for the PL's pretending they'd won the case.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I did wonder if city might be trying to get the apt rules as a whole scrapped, but actually they are probably quite handy now for city in terms of restraining the spending of other clubs with rich owners, and to stop others restructuring debt. Maybe it's just making a point that we'll only accept rules that are legally sound?
Click to expand...
APT is not going to be scrapped. Yes I think they are more making a forceful point
 
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