give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 21,933
- Team supported
- Manchester City
How can rags make claim on rules they voted for ?
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
How can rags make claim on rules they voted for ?
I didn't say that - I never say things like that without qualification. Listen more carefully next time or don't. But don't misquote.
arbabarshad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 778
I don’t think you need validation from me but I do think you’ve done well explaining legal issues on the forum relating to the 115 case and the apt case. I can also believe when you say you believe you’re defending a position you believe to be correct. But that’s also lawyers language for saying I believe it to be correct based on the information available to me.
All I am trying to say is perhaps information available to you is not all the information available to city’s legal team and that is why their position is different from yours. And both the positions can be correct based on the level of information available to both parties.
cityontheup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 1,488
If the apt rules pre Nov 2024 have been judge null and void any restrictions or penalties incurred during that time are also null and void and compensation for any loss can be sought, correct?
Root ginger
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
I know the two cases are not connected but after this result the PL have been shown at least to be incompetent.
How can they now be seen as competent to bring the 115 against us
How can they now be seen as competent to bring the 115 against us
However, you can be sure a very intelligent, strategic member of our club has a lot more knowledge on this.
For me, there is either something larger at play or it’s simply a way to make a stand and also push Masters closer to the door.
It’s not a full win of them being null and void but as others say we have justification for high market value, we want flex but not crazy changes.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,575
Another four hours yet .... (puts thinking cap on)
Clearly. But clearly the PL's legal team has the same info as City and they also disagree with certain bits. I don't think people understand just how marginal so many legal cases of this type are and how both side's lawyers can simultaneously sound completely and utterly right whilst one party is then declared wrong.
Danny Hoekman
Well-Known Member
I didn't have any rag mates growing up! Surrounded myself the blues me.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Have you not listened to Scruffy Jims justifications for what he does, including his other interests such as the Americas Cup and the NZ rugby sponsorships withdrawals? Big Brother would be proud of the doublespeak.
There have been nearly 800 posts in the 18 hours since I was last on this thread and I've barely scratched the surface of those. Nor have I read anything about the judgment other than a couple of reports. If this lack of detailed knowledge of the case means I'm mistaken in the analysis below, then apologies and I'm happy to be corrected. Anyway, for what they're worth, this post contains my impressions so far.
Clearly, this is a win for City and not merely a negligible one. We set out to have the PL's APT rules declared void and they were, so there's no other way to view it. There's certainly satisfaction to be taken from that, whatever else happens subsequently. I therefore won't criticise City fans who want to enjoy the moment given the clear hostility with which the PL regards our club and I'm pleased, too.
That said, the practical effect as we move forward may not end up being all that significant for a couple of reasons:
From my perspective, the major point to take away relates to the PL. In my view, in the real world, there'd be hall to pay in the relevant industry if a quasi-regulatory body tried to enact a set of rules that were subsequently declared void in their entirety and the organisation were shown, in the proceedings leading to that outcome, not to be impartial as regards leading players in the industry when formulating and applying its rules. Extensive changes in its leadership would be an absolute certainty.
In my view, Masters's position thus ought to be untenable, but I thought that was the case as soon as the initial decision became public. Nonetheless, the usual slow-witted dullards in the media were happy to perform their accustomed client journalist role by spinning, after the initial determination, the claim, highly dubious even then, that the PL had been the victors in the case.
If he survives now, I assume it's so he can be the fall-guy should the so-called '115' case produce an outcome that influential PL member clubs regard as unpalatable. I regard his eventual demise as a certainty and will celebrate it whenever it comes.
Clearly, this is a win for City and not merely a negligible one. We set out to have the PL's APT rules declared void and they were, so there's no other way to view it. There's certainly satisfaction to be taken from that, whatever else happens subsequently. I therefore won't criticise City fans who want to enjoy the moment given the clear hostility with which the PL regards our club and I'm pleased, too.
That said, the practical effect as we move forward may not end up being all that significant for a couple of reasons:
- It's only the old set of rules that has been struck down by this ruling and there's now a new set that the PL claims is valid because the offending provisions from the previous rules have been removed, so City have to go through the whole process again to have the new rules invalidated and it's hard at the moment to judge from outside what the prospects are in that case.
- In terms of City claiming compensation for the PL rejecting proposed sponsorship deals of the club under the old rules, any claim needs to show that the loss claimed results directly from the PL's actions, and that may not be easy to do for more nebulous claims, while, as we're basically talking about the Etihad deal here and that arrangement is evidently still in effect, it's not exactly clear from outside what the loss actually is.
From my perspective, the major point to take away relates to the PL. In my view, in the real world, there'd be hall to pay in the relevant industry if a quasi-regulatory body tried to enact a set of rules that were subsequently declared void in their entirety and the organisation were shown, in the proceedings leading to that outcome, not to be impartial as regards leading players in the industry when formulating and applying its rules. Extensive changes in its leadership would be an absolute certainty.
In my view, Masters's position thus ought to be untenable, but I thought that was the case as soon as the initial decision became public. Nonetheless, the usual slow-witted dullards in the media were happy to perform their accustomed client journalist role by spinning, after the initial determination, the claim, highly dubious even then, that the PL had been the victors in the case.
If he survives now, I assume it's so he can be the fall-guy should the so-called '115' case produce an outcome that influential PL member clubs regard as unpalatable. I regard his eventual demise as a certainty and will celebrate it whenever it comes.
Last edited:
2021-2024 maybe more debatable. We know for sure that from Sept 2024 to November 2024 even on the PL's case, there was no APT regime.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Fag packet maths, let's call it £20m for both sets of legal fees on this one?
Another £50m on 130?
I very much doubt even the Premier League have the appetite to appeal City's next big win?
Another £50m on 130?
I very much doubt even the Premier League have the appetite to appeal City's next big win?
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,449
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2009
- Messages
- 16,617
Regardless of the reason, that is exactly what you said when this APT case started. I know you're sensitive to being reminded of this from your previous rebuffal to other posters.
Its certainly not trolling, your posts are very much valued by I suspect everyone on this forum, including myself, but perhaps you should try not being so sensitive on a forum for discussion when someone politely points out that your opinion turned out to be wrong.