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

slbsn said:
Not materially
Click to expand...
So given you don’t see any point of APT2, does that mean that:

a) you think City are being foolish?

b) just looking for another PR win or are doing it out of spite?

c) are doing for a reason you don’t yet know but accept that you/we may later realise?

d) something else entirely?

It’s just these legal battles aren’t cheap (although the awarding of costs has made it less expensive this time), so one would imagine that as we have some of the best legal minds in the UK working on this, they’re not just doing it for shits and giggles, surely?
 
slbsn said:
This below (after a number of very polite responses) a) questions my integrity b) accuses me of insulting people's intelligence c) lying for money. But keep doubling down.

"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."

LIKE IT OR NOT, I am entitled to believe this whole APT thing is only a small win for City.
Click to expand...
That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, that's the whole point of a football forum. Other people are entitled to question your viewpoint and enquire as to why you have reached that.

No one insulted you and you seem surprised by people questioning you.

Respect is a 2 way thing. The optics are not good when you start telling people to fuck off especially when they are just questioning your view point.

It's simple, if you do not wish to continue conversing with someone, that is your perogative and you can politely say that you no longer wish to do so. When you start telling people to fuck off, you just make yourself look stupid, especially when you would not have the bollocks to do it in person.

Now, I will politely refrain from conversing with you. Enjoy your day.
 
slbsn said:
This below (after a number of very polite responses) a) questions my integrity b) accuses me of insulting people's intelligence c) lying for money. But keep doubling down.

"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."

LIKE IT OR NOT, I am entitled to believe this whole APT thing is only a small win for City.
Click to expand...
I think a distinction can be drawn between the PR and legal battles. It is only a small victory in a long-runnning legal battle. But I think we are finally turning the tide in the court of public opinion. And this is important. So, as you have said earlier, it is a big PR win. You could argue that the reputational battle is as crucial as the legal one.
 
slbsn said:
It was challenged - I explained numerous times where in the decision yesterday- and it was said to be necessary hence we have APT rules in the re-write. The only real remaining question (without seeing the pleadings) is in respect of historic shareholder loans. City appear to say the historic carve out is unlawful - they are possibly correct but it is not clear where that takes them because that is easily fixed.
Click to expand...

But if the shareholder loans issue was backdated to when they started - as the 115 case was) would it not cost the arsenals of this world a lot of money?
That & the fact that the PL are going to have to consider all rules more carefully in future (& not just aim them at us) - which in itself is a victory
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose, but the likely financial damage would be minimal and the consequential damage difficult to claim I would imagine. Imho.
Click to expand...
Minimal is beside the point though? As no one knows specifics of anyone’s potential loss.

Also one minimal loss might not seem a big issues but several minimal losses could aggregate to a material loss.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I think a distinction can be drawn between the PR and legal battles. It is only a small victory in a long-runnning legal battle. But I think we are finally turning the tide in the court of public opinion. And this is important. So, as you have said earlier, it is a big PR win. You could argue that the reputational battle is as crucial as the legal one.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The PL have been opened up & their aim was clearly to protect the red cartel by aiming their guns at us. This win is significant
 
This is what Sky News has reported:

----------

"
So Premier League chief executive Richard Masters believes those new rules replaced the ones now found to be void by the tribunal - attempting to underplay the impact of this ruling.

In a statement after the ruling, the Premier League said: "The tribunal's decision has found that the three narrow aspects of the old APT rules, previously found to be unlawful, cannot be separated from the rest of the previous rules as a matter of law. The result, the tribunal has determined, is that the previous APT rules, as a whole, are unenforceable.

"However, the previous APT rules are no longer in place, as clubs voted new APT rules into force in November 2024. This decision expressly does not impact the valid operation of the new rules."

The Premier League added: "The League continues to believe that the new APT Rules are valid and enforceable and is pressing for an expeditious resolution of this matter."

But City are also challenging the legality of the new rules that are designed to prevent the wealthiest clubs from inflating the value of deals to spend more on players and comply with Profit and Sustainability rules (PSR)."

news.sky.com

Manchester City score legal win over Premier League - as financial rules ruled void and unenforceable

The financial rules were first introduced in December 2021 after the Saudi takeover of Newcastle.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

-----------

So it seems, despite losing the original case and misrepresenting the outcome, Masters is now saying this new win for City doesn't matter because they've already replaced the rules.

I think Masters is actually dling his best to resist City's push because he realises what the end game is.

If City win their challenge to these new APT rules and then also force through the retrospective reassessment of PSR for all clubs with shareholder loans and have them punished accordingly. Things can get interesting.

If owner investment is limited to £90m every 3 years under PSR but an owner can lend as much money as they want interest free without any need to pay it back, how is that not owner investment?? It's exactly the same thing.

People like Simon Jordan bang on about what a brilliant job Tony Bloom has done at Brighton, but all he has done is what Sheik Mansour has done at City, albeit on a smaller scale.

The only reason Arsenal are competing back at the top by spending vast amounts of money is because of interest free shateholder loans that don't need to be paid back.

Liverpool have benefited from a £240m 0.5% loan back in 2010 which is pretty much the same thing.

The thing is City are challenging these loans as well. and I have a sneaky suspicion if successful they might then launch a further legal challenge and render the whole system of PSR void.

It's like salami slices. Each small win is a slice and eventually City will have won the whole case. Compensation for brand damage, lost sponsorship deals etc will follow.

I think Masters knows this and is fighting every step of the way to make it as difficult as possible for City to succeed.
 
Last edited:
SWP's back said:
So given you don’t see any point of APT2, does that mean that:

a) you think City are being foolish?

b) just looking for another PR win or are doing it out of spite?

c) are doing for a reason you don’t yet know but accept that you/we may later realise?

d) something else entirely?

It’s just these legal battles aren’t cheap (although the awarding of costs has made it less expensive this time), so one would imagine that as we have some of the best legal minds in the UK working on this, they’re not just doing it for shits and giggles, surely?
Click to expand...
a) no

b) Maybe and definitely not (you slipped two reasonings in there)

c) & d) effectively are the same thing and is probably the answer.
 
slbsn said:
The 2 pieces weren't written pro and con. They were analysis based on the limited info at the time. There is a whole thread on here with them and on google.

Messenger's should fact check before coming out with nonsense.
Click to expand...
Just discussing what my son said, he obviously got it wrong but you did say that City wouldn't win their argument with regards to the APT rules.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, that's the whole point of a football forum. Other people are entitled to question your viewpoint and enquire as to why you have reached that.

No one insulted you and you seem surprised by people questioning you.

Respect is a 2 way thing. The optics are not good when you start telling people to fuck off especially when they are just questioning your view point.

It's simple, if you do not wish to continue conversing with someone, that is your perogative and you can politely say that you no longer wish to do so. When you start telling people to fuck off, you just make yourself look stupid, especially when you would not have the bollocks to do it in person.

Now, I will politely refrain from conversing with you. Enjoy your day.
Click to expand...
You're now obviously trying to troll Stefan (poorly), give it a rest.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, that's the whole point of a football forum. Other people are entitled to question your viewpoint and enquire as to why you have reached that.

No one insulted you and you seem surprised by people questioning you.

Respect is a 2 way thing. The optics are not good when you start telling people to fuck off especially when they are just questioning your view point.

It's simple, if you do not wish to continue conversing with someone, that is your perogative and you can politely say that you no longer wish to do so. When you start telling people to fuck off, you just make yourself look stupid, especially when you would not have the bollocks to do it in person.

Now, I will politely refrain from conversing with you. Enjoy your day.
Click to expand...
 
dave_blue12 said:
You have made two mistakes.

1. You have a rag mate

2. The rag you have befriended is thick as fuck.

You’re welcome;)
Click to expand...
1. i'd have only had one mate growing up as a kid if i hadn't befriended rags.
even @Ric will admit to having more rag mates than blue ones i think.
now that thongs have turned fullcircle it's been worth hanging on to them just to see their pain, haha.

2. he's actually really sound and normally rational about most things but when it comes to us and them his brain fills with pure muddlement.
it's a joy to behold.


up the mighty blues!
 
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