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

RegisteredToSeePhotos said:
Sky Sports' website finally reporting on this

www.skysports.com

Man City claim legal victory against Premier League over APT financial rules

In a case brought by Man City, an independent panel has determined that Associated Party Transaction rules are void and unenforceable; it is believed this ruling could open the door for legal action; but the Premier League insists that depends on the judgement on the new rules
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...
you have to laugh at unbiased Sly sports reporting !

Firstly they state " They also targeted the revenue that could be raised by Abu Dhabi-backed City from state entities through sponsorship."

Then a few lines later they state "The Premier League champions are owned by UAE vice-president Sheikh Mansour."

Thankfully I havent paid Sky a penny for a long time !!
 
Good article by Martin Samuel in the Times. He argues, correctly, that the position of Masters is no longer tenable. Masters and Alison Brittain have presided over a heavy handed and foolhardy train wreck.

He explains that clubs like Everton and Forest incurred substantial legal costs over their points deductions and the league now faces potentially significant compensation claims. In addition, in November, rules that have now been declared to be void in their entirety were hastily redrafted by Masters and his gang. Now APT 2 will be assessed by the same panel.

Masters and his gang were always terrified of the prospect of an independent regulator. I think their heavy handed, and ultimately unlawful, actions were an attempt to show the government of the day that they could manage their own affairs. Hence the spraying about of fines and points deductions here, there and everywhere.

Masters must go, as should Brittain. City and others clubs should be seeking costs and significant damages. City did not start this fight, but Masters and his cronies must now accept that you don't bring a feather duster to a knife fight with our club.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Some questions after reading and listening to analysis of this great result for the club.

Why did we contest the lawfulness of the old rules? I take it this case started before the new rules were voted in in November?

Surely we can now get the same result on the new rules?
Click to expand...

The value of the sponsorship was not determined by the club/sponsor it was determined by the premier league who could undervalue it or even block the deal. We claimed this was unlawful which the tribunal agreed.

Your second point depends on the amendments however we clearly think they are still unlawful and have challenged the amendments as well
 
Cassandra said:
I’m wondering how this reflects on Murray Rosen, he has been taking forward action against clubs (Everton, Leicester) based on flawed rules. Aa a lawyer with a considerable reputation particularly in sports law should he not have been more aware of the possibility that they were flawed and cautioned the Premier League accordingly? As Chair of the Premier Leagues’s Judicial Committee, does he not take responsibility for deciding whether and when cases are taken forward?
Click to expand...

Murray Rosen played no part in the decision to charge clubs. He was responsible for appointing the tribunal.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
It doesn’t work like that and nor should, to be fair. Arsenals mitigation would be untouchable in that they were following the rules that were in place at the time.
It’d be like getting done because you smoked in a pub in 1980, or many thousands of elderly people getting done for smacking their kids in the 70’s, before both those things were illegal.
Click to expand...
If only that was applied to City in the 115 case & the EPL going back to 2009 before FFP
 
lonestay said:
accepted they voted against the Prem , but they could have joined us front and centre to really drive it home to the Prem, instead of just being on the sidelines hoping to gain from someone elses work.
Click to expand...
They did right staying away. It would have been portrayed as the Middle East taking on the PL.
 
lonestay said:
accepted they voted against the Prem , but they could have joined us front and centre to really drive it home to the Prem, instead of just being on the sidelines hoping to gain from someone elses work.
Click to expand...
Could of been seen as a middle east power grab....

The yank cartel and their media lackeys would of been all over that and spin it in favour of them
 
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