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

Nightmare Walking said:
You keep saying this. But, is the decision not in a load of legal jargon, which very full of us will comprehend in layman's terms? It would be like me saying I had read the paper on semiconductor physics and part of the problem is you have not read it. Now, I seriously doubt semiconductors or electronics fall under your remit of expertise. So, I don't expect you to fully understand the implications of a scientific paper. What I would do is try to break it down into simple parts so that people can grasp the implications.
You don't seem to communicate like that. Your default seems to be 'I'm correct because I have read the decision'.

You may well be correct in your assertions. But, when most media outlets have now changed their tune and are saying this is a massive win for City, are you really surprised when people are questioning your views when you initially said City would not won win and that initially, it was only a slight win?

You also keep saying City have not won because they will just keep changing the APT rules until they are legal. This is a little like Triggers Broom. After 3 new heads and 4 new handles, at which point does it become a new broom?

At the end of the day, you have stuck your head above the parapet for increased media exposure, ego or for financial incentives. It does not help your interests to admit that you are wrong. When all the talk this morning is of a stunning victory for City, you can't expect not to be shot when all you keep saying is "I have read the decision"

You are just insulting people's intelligence, especially when suggesting the Premier League had significant and big victories, while City only had a slight victory. It's like saying Liverpool were the best team in the country and had all the best players They should have shared the title, despite the fact City actually won it.
Click to expand...
I've got a degree in electronics if you need any help understanding that semi conductor paper - it's just Silicon Gallium Arsenide....
 
I think the pile on is a bit unfair on Stefan and fair play he takes the time to respond to so many replies. I wish he was harder on Talksport and corrected a lot of the guff on there, if he did he probably wouldn't be asked back though. I see him as trying to be a voice of reason, which in a media industry there is very little.

I think it is fair to question him off this, something forgotten is originally he called it a score draw and at the time it was Jordan saying he felt it was a big positive for City. More knowledge has come to light in what looks a huge win for City, on different levels and he has called it a small win. That is bonkers, it makes no sense and the claim that the PL had wins because they said there should be APT rules in place, is again bonkers. That is just common sense you'd imagine.

This is big for City, on different levels as mentioned. We have warned several times what will happen if you keep coming for us, now hopefully we blow it all apart.
 
blueinsa said:
Indeed, poor phrasing from me but you get my drift.

One lawyer thinks x should apply whilst the other argues y.
Click to expand...
In fairness Stefan isn't arguing Y. He is arguing we don't understand what X means. I get he sees nuances in it that we can't. I just don't agree they are sufficient to fundamentally alter the implication of the verdict as presented.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
I disagree with this. This is not a small victory, and I don’t even think it appears to be a small victory. Plus, I think everyone is entitled to enjoy this victory because if you are in a fight the alternative is a defeat.

But remember 2011 when we beat the rags in the semi final? That was brilliant, and was a reward in itself, but it would have been much less significant if we’d lost to Stoke.

Enjoy the victory, but don’t get carried away thinking we’re automatically going to win next time, too.

And that’s all the more reason for enjoying this one.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that both parties may now withdraw from APT2? It seems we have already achieved what we wanted with APT1.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
It’s damning for the red Cartel they they won’t show Dickie BTEC the door.

5 Live didn’t mention APT2. There was one snippet of Roan moaning though about this could lead to an unfair playing field lol
Click to expand...
they make me piss, like the unlevel playing fields in the 80's 90's.00's when liverpool and utd were mopping up most of the pots
 
slbsn said:
One thing that seems indisputable even on the PL's case is that between 25 September 2024 and 11 December 2024 (or whenever the November amendments came into force), there were no enforceable APT rules. Any deals signed then do not need any prior approval. Be interesting to see if anyone did that.
Click to expand...

Does that mean between those dates a club could have got a sponsor for 200m a season and not be checked for fair value?
 
waspish said:
Me personally don't get it?! My thinking if say Etihad was increasing the sponsor from 60m to 100m from 2022 and it got knocked back to 80m! In my no nought thinking the club has lost out on 20m a season since 2022.

Can you explain to me in layman's terms why what I just posted is wrong?
Click to expand...
So lets say City were forced to go ahead with Etihad (unique sponsor, unique package of rights etc) to take £20m less for 24/25 and 24/25 is now finished and the rules were void. That would seem to be a recoverable loss if it was established that it was caused because of the APT rules being incorrectly applied.

The FAB deal seems like a claimable loss as the deal was revised down and the club is not in a position to recover the lost revenue. In that case the loss is the difference between the headline submitted and the amount required to be revised down.

But if the rejection was for future years where loss could be mitigated or the deal resubmitted then loss is more questionable/doesn't exist.
 
Coatigan said:
Depends on so many things that none of us are privy to. Could be a week, a month, three months' worth of income from the deal, could be the effect of the delay on other deals or shares, could be lots of things depending on the structure of it all.

What do you base the opinion that there is no loss on?
Click to expand...
What about the Abu Dhabi Bank deal? Is this back on now? None of us know what the impact on our finances from the unlawful rules has been yet? It might be small but there could be impacts we don’t know about.
 
This is all beyond me! I am a football fan, and I understand a bit about that (or I like to think so anyway), but can anyone explain what yesterday’s announcements actually means?
 
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