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

BerkshireBlue said:
They denied city revenue of course it can be established
Click to expand...
First, that was not the finding - there was no finding that anything was impromperly denied. Second, the denied contract is for many years in advance so loss is not clear. Third, you above talk about this season, competition losses and other matters. None of that will be shown to have been caused by the denial of the FMV. I reiterate, the Panel did not find that the Etihad deal should have been approved. It merely unwound the final determination.
 
Vic said:
#604 "Injunctive relief and damages are also sought", so something must have been submitted.
Click to expand...
City's claim included damages - we know that.

604 then says: 'We reserve our jurisdiction to grant such relief. We do not so in this Award because we heard no submissions as to suchrelief and in any event we consider that the Parties should have the opportunity toconsider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in the light of our conclusions."

No submissions on damages were made in the initial hearing and as it says, no submissions were even made as to the jurisdiction of this Panel - it would be pointless to make submissions before hearing the decision of the Panel and given they didn't hear submissions on jurisdiction, they clearly wouldn't have heard submissions on damages. So it is possible that the second hearing heard an application for damages but I doubt that too given what the Panel found in the Initial Decision.

Right now, given the initial decision, it is hard to see what City's loss is.
 
slbsn said:
First, that was not the finding - there was no finding that anything was impromperly denied. Second, the denied contract is for many years in advance so loss is not clear. Third, you above talk about this season, competition losses and other matters. None of that will be shown to have been caused by the denial of the FMV. I reiterate, the Panel did not find that the Etihad deal should have been approved. It merely unwound the final determination.
Click to expand...
That sounds like the most overhyped claptrap I’ve ever here’d, can you explain in layman’s terms please.
 
slbsn said:
City's claim included damages - we know that.

604 then says: 'We reserve our jurisdiction to grant such relief. We do not so in this Award because we heard no submissions as to suchrelief and in any event we consider that the Parties should have the opportunity toconsider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in the light of our conclusions."

No submissions on damages were made in the initial hearing and as it says, no submissions were even made as to the jurisdiction of this Panel - it would be pointless to make submissions before hearing the decision of the Panel and given they didn't hear submissions on jurisdiction, they clearly wouldn't have heard submissions on damages. So it is possible that the second hearing heard an application for damages but I doubt that too given what the Panel found in the Initial Decision.

Right now, given the initial decision, it is hard to see what City's loss is.
Click to expand...

Maybe City are waiting for the result from the apt before claiming for damages?
 
slbsn said:
First, that was not the finding - there was no finding that anything was impromperly denied. Second, the denied contract is for many years in advance so loss is not clear. Third, you above talk about this season, competition losses and other matters. None of that will be shown to have been caused by the denial of the FMV. I reiterate, the Panel did not find that the Etihad deal should have been approved. It merely unwound the final determination.
Click to expand...
Well considering your track record of being wrong about pretty much most it so far. I'll stand by that city will file for damages and get them. It's just a question of how much
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Well considering your track record of being wrong about pretty much most it so far. I'll stand by that city will file for damages and get them. It's just a question of how much
Click to expand...
@slbsn knows his onions. Far from being wrong most of the time, the level of foresight he demonstrates is extraordinary.

It's always a pleasure to listen to and to read someone who is so proficient in their field, and Stefan is probably the country's leading expert in football finance. I'm just glad he posts his insights here, but think I'd prefer it if he was still working for City!
 
As an idiot i will put my opinion in.First of the PL is a members group, and as such all member bodies have a rule. For the benefit of all. Anyone can propose an illegal activity, they can second it, and they can vote it in. The governing body has a duty to examine the benefits and legality before putting the proposal into action.
When City sued the PL, they proved that the PL governing body was not fit for purpose, but around 23 charges were unproven, how close City were to proving them remains unknown. the PL made a statement claiming the Panel said the new PSR rules were needed. This is a lie and someone needs to be held accountable.
It is being said that City spending suggest City have won the 115, this is highly unlikely, as any punishment is likely years away if it ever happens.
But the 115 could have a bearing on City suing the PL again, because while it is important that the PL investigates all suspicious activity, it also has to show it is not harassing one of it`s members, so has any other club been investigated in the same way City have, even multiple times as the PL were involved with the UEFA case. The 115 is a double edged sword what the PL lose, City may well add to their case, which would make the 23 unproven very interesting.
As you can see i rely on the experts on these pages for financial understanding. But i view this now as a disciplinary, followed by a grievance, followed by another grievance, it can be kept in house but is clearly going to court and unfortunately for the PL, the employee is rich enough to take the costs, which is the normal stumbling block.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
As an idiot i will put my opinion in.First of the PL is a members group, and as such all member bodies have a rule. For the benefit of all. Anyone can propose an illegal activity, they can second it, and they can vote it in. The governing body has a duty to examine the benefits and legality before putting the proposal into action.
When City sued the PL, they proved that the PL governing body was not fit for purpose, but around 23 charges were unproven, how close City were to proving them remains unknown. the PL made a statement claiming the Panel said the new PSR rules were needed. This is a lie and someone needs to be held accountable.
It is being said that City spending suggest City have won the 115, this is highly unlikely, as any punishment is likely years away if it ever happens.
But the 115 could have a bearing on City suing the PL again, because while it is important that the PL investigates all suspicious activity, it also has to show it is not harassing one of it`s members, so has any other club been investigated in the same way City have, even multiple times as the PL were involved with the UEFA case. The 115 is a double edged sword what the PL lose, City may well add to their case, which would make the 23 unproven very interesting.
As you can see i rely on the experts on these pages for financial understanding. But i view this now as a disciplinary, followed by a grievance, followed by another grievance, it can be kept in house but is clearly going to court and unfortunately for the PL, the employee is rich enough to take the costs, which is the normal stumbling block.
Click to expand...
You certainly aren't a Miss Marples
 
salfordbluetrue said:
As an idiot i will put my opinion in.First of the PL is a members group, and as such all member bodies have a rule. For the benefit of all. Anyone can propose an illegal activity, they can second it, and they can vote it in. The governing body has a duty to examine the benefits and legality before putting the proposal into action.
When City sued the PL, they proved that the PL governing body was not fit for purpose, but around 23 charges were unproven, how close City were to proving them remains unknown. the PL made a statement claiming the Panel said the new PSR rules were needed. This is a lie and someone needs to be held accountable.
It is being said that City spending suggest City have won the 115, this is highly unlikely, as any punishment is likely years away if it ever happens.
But the 115 could have a bearing on City suing the PL again, because while it is important that the PL investigates all suspicious activity, it also has to show it is not harassing one of it`s members, so has any other club been investigated in the same way City have, even multiple times as the PL were involved with the UEFA case. The 115 is a double edged sword what the PL lose, City may well add to their case, which would make the 23 unproven very interesting.
As you can see i rely on the experts on these pages for financial understanding. But i view this now as a disciplinary, followed by a grievance, followed by another grievance, it can be kept in house but is clearly going to court and unfortunately for the PL, the employee is rich enough to take the costs, which is the normal stumbling block.
Click to expand...
That first sentence should be stickied.
 
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