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

[jrb]

Jesus.

Talk about making it clear you have no idea what you’re talking about haha

Is he the same Arsenal fan who's on the Arsenal thread posting bollocks?

He hasn't got a F*cling clue.

Don't waste your time on him mate

 

[calumdown]

And why not, when you criticise someone's grammer?

grammer?

 

[slbsn]

Are APT1 and APT2 wholly separate? Surely, if the Tribunals determination on APT1 make it clear that elements of the ‘quick fix’ that became APT2 are insufficient to make them lawful - do City need to bring another case? Surely, the PL would need to act to ensure that they have rules that comply with the law? The PL must have their own Legal Counsel who are there to ensure legal compliance- or are they being drowned out by the noise from the Red cartel.

I think if City get what they want from APT1, APT2 would be redundant. Because if everything is null and void, the PL are back to the drawing board anyway.

The PLs advice is the amendments are fine but everything is legally arguable on some fine points.

 

[slbsn]

It's irrelevant when it occurred the tribunal found they unfairly blocked the deals that's all that is needed for damages to be awarded

No. You need particularised loss to get damages. It is not apparent City have any losses at all.

 

[terraloon]

:)

The judgment left a few things open:

View attachment 146038The recent two day hearing was to settle them.

I totally forgot those points.

One thing that struck me when I initially read the written reasons was the point around equity investment . The IC if I remember didn’t comment on the treatment of equity and went to significant lengths to point out that very fact almost as if they wanted to make a ruling but couldn’t because they hadn’t been asked to

 

[slbsn]

:)

The judgment left a few things open:

View attachment 146038The recent two day hearing was to settle them.

It was broader than those matters

 

[WRicko]

Could this relate to the treatment of hotels and players sales that seems a bit inflated

 

[WRicko]

No. You need particularised loss to get damages. It is not apparent City have any losses at all.

The sponsorships that didn’t get approved ?

 

[BerkshireBlue]

No. You need particularised loss to get damages. It is not apparent City have any losses at all.

The loss is in competitions, sponsorship and broadcasting money lost. It's a major reason why city are in such a mess at the minute as they couldn't plan properly.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

grammer?

To be fair, that’s more of a speeling erorr.

;-)

 

[inchy14]

Can’t unless FMV

How can a loan not be fair market value?

 

[slbsn]

The loss is in competitions, sponsorship and broadcasting money lost. It's a major reason why city are in such a mess at the minute as they couldn't plan properly.

This is wrong. In any event these would be consequential losses and causation would not be established

 

[Vic]

No. You need particularised loss to get damages. It is not apparent City have any losses at all.

Would the panel reserve judgment on damages if they didn't think they might be awarded?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Think you meant ‘illegal’.

And 'Tarquin ****'.

 

[slbsn]

How can a loan not be fair market value?

Fees and terms

 

[slbsn]

Would the panel reserve judgment on damages if they didn't think they might be awarded?

It said they had had no submissions on damages so weren’t reserving judgment - just hadn’t considered

 

[Vic]

It said they had had no submissions on damages so weren’t reserving judgment - just hadn’t considered

#604 "Injunctive relief and damages are also sought", so something must have been submitted.

 

[Mike S]

When the rules voted through are lawful.

Even if 20 voted on rules, it doesn't make them lawful.

And it is "wrong"

Two rongs don't make a rite !

 

[cityontheup]

Two rongs don't make a rite !

Nuff sed

 

[Omar the King]

Sue you later alligator