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

Silva61 said:
Always thought what City want is a level playing field, i dont believe they want an end to APT.What our opponents are scared of is if we ever get that, it will push them back and move us further ahead.
This looks like a win win to me.
Click to expand...
Abu Dhabi backed City but not UNited States of America backed Livarpool
 
slbsn said:
I don't think anyone knows what the answer is to this and to the extent that City can prove they permantently lost the opportunity and couldn't mitigate that loss by other or later sales AND it was caused by the faulty APT rules, they may be able to construct a claim. But I don't think that will be the case. City have definitely has at least 24/25 approved under the rules as required because they are on the kit this season.
Click to expand...
By faulty do you mean the Unlawful APT 1 rules which have been declared Null and Void
 
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 did go on talksport to talk about City and the accusations a while back , interview started and Martin was very complimentary about us and started to basically fight our corner!

Que the obligatory’oh we seem to have lost the line to Martin billshit!’
And cut him off ,never to be asked back

Tells u all u need to know about them cunts
 
slbsn said:
I don't think anyone knows what the answer is to this and to the extent that City can prove they permantently lost the opportunity and couldn't mitigate that loss by other or later sales AND it was caused by the faulty APT rules, they may be able to construct a claim. But I don't think that will be the case. City have definitely has at least 24/25 approved under the rules as required because they are on the kit this season.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all your input tonight.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Extract from Samuel in his article having seen the report:

The most damning statement in this latest ruling is that the Premier League employed “sleight of hand” in its presentation of the rules after the initial judgment. There should be considerable disquiet among stakeholders about that, considerable disquiet about the tenure of the Premier League’s chief executive, Richard Masters, and its chairwoman, Alison Brittain. Are their positions even tenable now?

The **** has deliberately misled everyone. Total ****.


Link to archived version of Martin Samuel full Times article here:

Click to expand...
Not going to make me any more popular, but the decision doesn't say anything of the sort. The "sleight of hand" referred to was the PL's counsel arguing that the PL rules weren't a contract but were an instrument to try and get away from the blue pencil test. A highly technical legal argument and nothing at all to do with anything presentational to the outside world. In short, it was just a shit argument.

1739575733944.png
 
“Premier League chief executive Richard Masters made clubs aware of the situation in an email this afternoon.

In it, he acknowledged that the ‘previous rules as a whole are void and unenforceable’ but attempted to play down the development.

‘The previous APT rules are no longer in place,’ he said, ‘and new rules were voted into force’.

‘The league has previously told clubs that this decision was about the legal status of previous APT rules and would not impact the operation of new rules.’ That remains to be seen. Masters added that the new rules remain in force and that clubs remain required to comply with them.”

From DailyFail.com

While I can completely accept the first two bolded statements, it is the bolded and italicized text that seems delusional.

The rush to vote on the new rules is now abundantly clear…he needed to be able to force City to be the bad guy and sue the PL AGAIN when the obvious ruling came down.

Hard to see the new rules being anything but fruit of the poisonous tree at this point, but I guess City are going to have to force the matter once more.

Masters position is absolutely untenable and needed to go already, but his deluded comments appear to confirm his chutzpah and desire to continue the charade.

Lock and load, City, and roll in hot!
 
Nightmare Walking said:
When he is coming out with comments that the Premier League had significant and big wins, while City only had a slight win. Yet, the rules have been judged to be null and void, is it not obvious that some people are questioning him?
He may have far more knowledge and expertise than all of us. But that does not mean that he should not be questioned on his comments. It's not in his personal interests to say "I got that wrong". So, obviously people are a little skeptical this evening, considering the news that has emerged today.
Stefan may well be proved to be right in his assessment and you would hope so considering he is the expert in these topics. But, to the laymen on here (myself included) his assessment does not sit quite right this evening.
Click to expand...
Ignore him mate, he’s a right grumpy ****.
 
Marvin. said:
You can read the ruling if you like in full from the link in the Premier League statement.

I wouldn't bother. That's City's lawyers job.

Point 45 though is relevant to Stefan's partial victory verdict...

45. Of course, whether or not the Club will benefit from our conclusion in this Partial Final Award that the APT Rules and Amended APT Rules are void because severance of the shareholder loan exclusion is not possible will depend upon whether the Club succeeds in its contention (to be advanced in the further arbitration commenced on 20 January 2025) that the November 2024 Amended APT Rules are also void

It's a win in my book in the sense that the APT case is still live. And we made the PL look incompetent. City's guidance to the PL clubs regarding the significance of the original APT hearing was validated.
Click to expand...
It’s a major PR win and this whole witch-hunt has been driven for PR reasons. This hate campaign is not about points of law. The motivation of Masters and his cronies has been to destroy City’s reputation.
 
Last edited:
johnny crossan said:
Our current stature is very different from 2014 and UEFA has no issue with our compliance a decade on as the 2nd most valuable club in the world. Curious comment Stefan.
Click to expand...
Curious response Jonny. The sponsors are precisely the same and the test the same. I'm merely pointing out that UEFA literally did challenge these points and it impacted the club for years after.
 
slbsn said:
It 100% is not a blank cheque. APT is here to stay.
Click to expand...
I don’t think City are against financial Regulations per se, khaldoon himself has stated many times we will make sure we comply with prudent, sound, independent Regulation. However, the APT rules city saw as poor and unlawful and with an agenda, ie gulf state sponsorships against shareholder loans and rightfully challenged them. I don’t see any other objective for city other than fair play for all clubs sponsors, loans or any other investments across the board. I still think city see themselves as a target because of the Middle Eastern connections and I would tend to agree even if city couldn’t make that point stick. City don’t strike me as a club with a vendetta (even though they’d be well within their rights imo) but rather a club that wants rules that are fair for all and doesn’t alienate the gulf investors.
 
Paladin said:
I'm not saying he got it wrong. I'm saying I don't value his views at all as a serious football opinion former. As I said, he probably read a few articles before penning the consensus opinion.

It's been said on this forum that the finest analysts on City's legal battles are to be found on Bluemoon. We shouldn't disrespect those same people now that they are advising caution.
Click to expand...
No disrespect from me friend, Stefan is working hard tonight. Not heard from Chris in London, Petrushka or GDM yet though have we? As for the BBC hit squad I find it amusing that Cyrano & Banned Roan penned that piece - looks like the cartel propaganda pipe is leaking.
 
slbsn said:
PR wise perhaps but little beyond that at this stage. Even the final award says City don't yet necessarily have the benefit of the decision today due to APT 2.
Click to expand...
I think you could have used many more apposite words than tangible, especially given it arises from a place of subjectivity rather than objectivity. I’m sure this feels like a tangible win for many City fans, irrespective of any forensic legal analysis.
 
chesterguy said:
By faulty do you mean the Unlawful APT 1 rules which have been declared Null and Void
Click to expand...
I mean they will need to show causation and it is not clear if that means to the offending clauses causing the unlawfulness or just by virtue of the rules being unlawful. But as I said, loss remains the question. It is hard to see why the deal doesn't remain on the table so if City believe today means there is no APT in place (the PL disagree) and City enter into the deal, then they have no loss anyway.
 
slbsn said:
Not going to make me any more popular, but the decision doesn't say anything of the sort. The "sleight of hand" referred to was the PL's counsel arguing that the PL rules weren't a contract but were an instrument to try and get away from the blue pencil test. A highly technical legal argument and nothing at all to do with anything presentational to the outside world. In short, it was just a shit argument.

View attachment 146767
Click to expand...
Sleight of hand meanining skillfull deception we know what it means and what they the premier league have been up to.They have been moving the goalposts to suit there needs for well over a decade!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think you could have used many more apposite words than tangible, especially given it arises from subjectivity rather than objectivity. I’m sure this feels like a tangible win for many City fans, irrespective of any forensic legal analysis.
Click to expand...
I think tangible is the right word. Soft PR wins may make fans feel good but they have as little impact as PR wins against us.
 
birchwoodgingerste said:
Sleight of hand meanining skillfull deception we know what it means and what they the premier league have been up to.They have been moving the goalposts to suit there needs for well over a decade!
Click to expand...
It is a criticism of a lawyer's shit argument by the Tribunal. Nothing else.
 
slbsn said:
Not going to make me any more popular, but the decision doesn't say anything of the sort. The "sleight of hand" referred to was the PL's counsel arguing that the PL rules weren't a contract but were an instrument to try and get away from the blue pencil test. A highly technical legal argument and nothing at all to do with anything presentational to the outside world. In short, it was just a shit argument.

View attachment 146767
Click to expand...
Yep. A shame...

I hadn't read the ruling when i posted that extract...
 
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