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

slbsn said:
I don't think the arguments on shareholder loans get City there. Won't massively hit any of the Big 6. Might theoretically give historic additional PSR losses to Everton but to what end? I doubt it takes Arsenal retrospectively over the edge on PSR. Again so to what end.
Click to expand...
Whether it's Neverton, the Arse, Wythy Amateurs or the Women's Institute 2nd XI, all City have ever wanted is a fair & even playing field.

That's the end Stefan. We don't seem to want heads on stakes, or push fellow PL members into the abyss. Just fairness.

If that is what comes out of this mess, then to this layman at least, that is an almighty win, with big brass bells on.
 
Don’t know what it is with Valentine’s Day and City v PL.

Sure it was 3 years ago, I was annoying my wife by being on bluemoon reading about the charges!!
 
slbsn said:
Overall it was a slight win for City because the PL had some significant wins. Not that complicated. A big win for City would have been APT being unlawful by object ie incapable of coming back in any form. City didn't get that.
Click to expand...
Was City's win bigger than the Premier Leagues?
 
98187e784f06bd11317620b037314f64.jpg
 
The point is lawyers will use every argument to try and win a case. They know many might be weak or spurious provided they get the big hits in. I think City wanted the rules in their previous guise deemed unlawful which they got which is a huge win. If they win the APT 2 case then that will be even better but the fact that for 3 years the PL have regulated with unlawful rules shows that the PL and its legal advisors are not fit for purpose
 
slbsn said:
Barely coherent. But read the PLs position tonight it may answer your scholarly points (which I don't understand - sorry).
Click to expand...
Appreciate your input as ever. Just be aware the good folk of BM are more used to legal advice from a drunk small claims solicitor after one of his longer ''lunches' ;-)
 
CorporateBlue said:
- First it was 'they'll splash big money on 2nd rate talent' then Sergio, Yaya, Silva and KDB arrived
- Then it was 'they'll never be able to gel all these big money signings' and we won the F Cup, then the league, then got 100 points, then broke the goal scoring record, then won the Treble, then won 4 in a row
- Then it was 'yeah but you'll never win the Champs League' so we did that
- All the while it was 'but you've got no fans' and we sell out a 50k+ stadium, and are adding 12k more
- Not forgetting we 'have no history' despite winning major/Euro trophies before all of the the Red Crybabies
- Then it was 'but you have an unfair money advantage' despite Utd/Liverpool building the majority of their trophies on the back of their PL/Champs League money advantage (without any spending restrictions or rules)
- then it was 'yeah, but you've been cheating' and our lawyers just proved the first phase of 'it was the rules that were illegal' ...

Karma is a bitch ...
Click to expand...
Superb mate
 
PL are utter nuts!

Makes me think bigger plans at play because surely they can’t be this stupid.

Not sure how PL survive this
 
jrb said:
The MUEN is owned by Trinity News.

Trinity News love the 3 Red Shirt Cartel clubs.

City don’t give the MUEN any information, updates, news, nothing, zilch.

So the MUEN/Trinity News print negative stories about City.

That’s their way of getting back at City.
Click to expand...
And they then try to sell it to City supporters?
Strange business model....
 
Revolver said:
From what I read and hear Martin Samuel is the only person who ever puts City’s point of view across (and he’s not a City fan).

It’s a crying shame he doesn’t go on Talksport etc. Of course they won’t have him on because he may expose this witch hunt and the hypocrisy.

The red audience wouldn’t want that.
Click to expand...
He’s always had a soft spot for us he tells it how it is the premier don’t like that
 
johnny crossan said:

'A huge blow to the Premier League'​

This decision is a huge blow to the Premier League and effectively it means their APT rules up to November 2024 were unenforceable. Any club who had a case heard under their rules is now in a position where they could launch a damages claim. One source has suggested this could make the Premier League – and effectively therefore its clubs – liable for tens of millions of pounds. This will also put a focus on chief executive Richard Masters, who confirmed the changes in November despite being cautioned against implementing them by City and Aston Villa amongst others.

www.bbc.co.uk

Premier League sponsorship rules 'void' says tribunal

The Premier League's rules governing sponsorship deals from the period between between 2021 and 2024 are "void and unenforceable", a tribunal rules.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
It's written by Simon Stone and appeared an hour after the news broke. That's probably because he was busy reading other accounts so that he could make up his mind on what his own opinion should be.
 
slbsn said:
We can do this all night but I fear I am arguing with people who haven't even read the decisions (partial and final). City failed to argue APT were an object restriction (ie as a concept) and unlawful in their entirety. So they then had to win on points of detail (ie specific rules or the lack of) - and did. The 3 areas of success did not override the overall confirmation that APT as a concept was ok. This is why I say it was partial victory.View attachment 146759
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point I was trying to make but no bother.
 
slbsn said:
No - postponed. But FMV exists in the UEFA rules too.
Click to expand...
Thanks, didn't know that. Straightforward FMV rules via UEFA RP regime have proved no threat to a club of City's stature. The issue with the PL APT add-on is its prejudicial treatment of City sponsors given traditional patterns of company ownership in the Middle East.
 
Does thai mean (ironically) smaller clubs who voted for this crap can now also sue if they show loss . Also Everton and forest sueing for loss of earning plus other legal costs and losses. Also if each club are on the hook for premier league costs/compo could this effect every club inc City. And then could clubs not impacted by APT sue for the new financial impact of settlement as premier league acted unlawfully. A can of worms?
 
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