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

Churchlawtonblue said:
You were discussing the APT rules with Jordan and White on a show around the time City launched their case. You stated it was a complicated legal issue which could go either way and near the end, said you thought City were unlikely to win, or had a slim chance of winning? Now if you genuinely think, me repeating this, and just politely pointing out that even you with your detailed legal knowledge, can sometimes be wrong with your honest opinions, is in some way me having a go at you? or trolling you? You really need to take a break mate, as that wasn't my intention. That's the end of this conversation for me. I've got a game to go to. Have a good day.
Click to expand...
Really didn't need another essay. I don't believe that saying it was unlikely City would win was wrong at all so why would I say it was. I have said many times I can be wring but I don't believe my analysis right now is wrong. You don't have to agree but I have explained in detail and with extracts from the actual decisions why. I don't know which TS segment you are referring to but given I have multiple published pieces that all match I doubt I deviated much. Lets hope we get a win.
 
Dribble said:
Brilliant post! Thank fuck people are beginning to wake up to Stefan & whatever professional agenda he's putting before the club he supposedly supports.
Click to expand...
Stefan is entitled to his opinion and I don't begrudge him making money out of his knowledge and experience.

I would also rather he was being honest, even if it goes against the best interests of the club.

But if an external journalist had said he did not think City would win and then after the initial verdict said it was not a significant victory. Every person on this board, rightly or wrongly would say he was just a paid shill for talk sport. If then he then suggested it was still not a significant victory after yesterday's news and it was the Premier League who had won the significant and big victories. Everyone on this board would be saying the journalist was clueless. Just look at the reaction to Rob Drapers comments. If City fans were to then query such a journalist in a non confrontational and reasonable manner and the journalist told the fans to fuck off. Every person on this forum would laugh the journalist out of town and would not take him seriously again.

No one has done that with Stefan. Hes not a jouralist but an expert in these topics. He has been given a platform to air his views and people are unsure about them as the mood seems to be extremely different to everything which seems to being fed through media channels. It's gone from City losing, to City winning big. Considering the anti City stance by most in the media through this episode. This is a huge shift.

Now Stefans view has not changed, he has in fact doubled down on it. For us who are not as informed, it does not seem to make any sense. I have absolutely no idea how Stefan benefits from his media profile but surely you have to question what someone's motives are when they go totally against what everyone else says, even when everyone else does a 180. If Stefan had said that before this clarification from the tribunal, the Premier League had scored some big victories, but City had come out winners by a slight margin. Yet, now that the Premier League has clarified its position it looks like City have emerged as big winners. No one would have questioned his initial assessment. That would not have made him wrong. But he still seems to be suggesting it's just a slight win when everything else seems to be suggesting otherwise. Then, instead of being able to clarify his views in a way us mere mortals understand. He has in my opinion done it in a patronising manner, which just gets people's back up.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with him. They have just not understood where he is coming from, considering his views seem totally against the mood music coming from the club and the media.
 
Last edited:
blueparrot said:
Agree with him or don't, but daft to say his professional opinion is some sort of agenda.
Click to expand...
What else would you call it? I've found his take on our situation strange from the very outset. I was shocked to learn he was supposed to be a City fan.

How about instead of him spewing out mouthfuls of legalease verbals, he breaks things down into the simplest form & asks questions on the reasoning behind the PL's continued rules which always seem to adversely affect City?

EG:

A: If someone publicly accused you of a seriously heinous crime, would you immediately get into the legalities of the accusations & the serious ramifications for you?

B: Or would you tell the accuser to fuck off & invite them to call in the authorities to prove their case, & if they didn't you'd do it yourself & when your innocence was proved, you'd see them in court for reputational damage?

I'm going for B. That's the sign of someone who believes the have "irrefutable evidence" that will clear their name. Now why isn't Stefan cutting through the bullshit & asking the media these most fundamental of questions?

If what City are accused of doing is so wrong, where are the police, HMRC, SFO & Companies House in all this? None can have failed to notice the allegations leveled at City, so why (to our knowledge) haven’t any of them acted?

I'd go further & ask Sly Sports & Talkshite if either had ever contacted the authorities for comment on City's criminality, & if not, why not?

This is the Stefan I want to see in the media, but as sure as eggs is eggs, if he ever dared put it on the media like this, his high profile appearances would end lickety split.

So my next question to you is, do you think Stefan's priority is to put the media on the spot regarding Manchester City, or to preserve his media presence? I find it increasingly difficult not to draw an obvious (to me) conclusion.
 
frankly,
all i've learned in the last few hours of my life on this thread is

1) @Didsbury Dave (who btw is neither from didsbury nor called dave) went to konspiracy.

2) @Carlos- the- jackal doesn't know his muffins from his barms.

everything else is going round in circles like women's hour.

all things considered,
i am now of the opinion that if you disagree with what someone else posted
it would make it much better for everyone else if you simply reply "fuck off" to their post and move on.
 
slbsn said:
Misjudged assumes I hold a view to satisfy our fans. I don't - I am just giving my view objectively specifically ignoring what the fans think. Lots of people can give you hyperbole without reading the decisions. BTW - where does the club say seismic? Don't think it does.
Click to expand...


“Seismic” 1:35 onwards.
 
calumdown said:
frankly,
all i've learned in the last few hours of my life on this thread is

1) @Didsbury Dave (who btw is neither from didsbury nor called dave) went to konspiracy.

2) @Carlos- the- jackal doesn't know his muffins from his barms.

everything else is going round in circles like women's hour.

all things considered,
i am now of the opinion that if you disagree with what someone else posted
it would make it much better for everyone else if you simply reply "fuck off" to their post and move on.
Click to expand...

Fuck off.

(You asked for it ....)
 
slbsn said:
I've not got time to engage in essays. It means marketing collateral ie the package of rights sold. There may be a better turn of phrase. Apologies.

You don't understand mitigation. But yes if we have an unrecoverable loss due to the breach (it must be a breach of contract claim) then we can claim.
Click to expand...
You've answered my question without an essay so thank you.
 
Dribble said:
What else would you call it? I've found his take on our situation strange from the very outset. I was shocked to learn he was supposed to be a City fan.

How about instead of him spewing out mouthfuls of legalise verbal, he breaks thing down into the simplest form & asks questions of the reasoning behind the PL's continued rules which always seem to adversely affect City?

EG:

A: If someone publicly accused you of a seriously heinous crime, would you immediately get into the legalities of the accusations & the serious ramifications for you?

B: Or would you tell the accuser to fuck off & invite them to call in the authorities to prove their case, & if they didn't you'd do it yourself & when your innocence was proved, you'd see them in court for reputational damage?

I'm going for B. That's the sign of someone who believes the have "irrefutable evidence" that will clear their name. Now why isn't Stefan cutting through the bullshit & asking the media the most fundamental of questions?

If what City are accused of doing is so wrong, where are the police, HMRC, SFO & Companies House in all this? None can have failed to notice the allegations leveled at City, so why (to our knowledge) haven’t any of them acted?

I'd go further & ask Sly Sports & Talkshite if either had ever contacted the authorities for comment on City's criminality, & if not, why not?

This is the Stefan I want to see in the media, but as sure as eggs is eggs, if he ever dared put it on the media like this, his high profile appearance would end lickety split.

So my next question to you is do you think Stefan's priority is to put the media on the spot regarding Manchester City, or to preserve his media presence? I find it increasingly difficult not to draw an obvious (to me) conclusion.
Click to expand...
Think he has a very dry considered,if slightly conservative (imo), professional view. A veiw which he caveats with not seeing any of the evidence.What you and others are asking is for him to be somebody he isn't.Nothing to do with any agenda,except to represent himself as professional and considered. Like I say if you don't like it fair enough, but he won't play to the gallery.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
Stefan is entitled to his opinion and I don't begrudge him making money out of his knowledge and experience.

I would also rather he was being honest, even if it goes against the best interests of the club.

But if an external journalist had said he did not think City would win and then after the initial verdict said it was not a significant victory. Every person on this board, rightly or wrongly would say he was just a paid shill for talk sport. If then he then suggested it was still not a significant victory after yesterday's news and it was the Premier League who had won the significant and big victories. Everyone on this board would be saying the journalist was clueless. Just look at the reaction to Rob Drapers comments. If City fans were to then query such a journalist in a non confrontational and reasonable manner and the journalist told the fans to fuck off. Every person on this forum would laugh the journalist out of town and would not take him seriously again.

No one has done that with Stefan. He has been given a platform to air his views and people are unsure about them as the mood seems to be extremely different to everything which seems to being fed through media channels. It's gone from City losing, to City winning big. Considering the anti City stance by most in the media through this episode. This is a huge shift.

Now Stefans view has not changed, he has in fact doubled down on it. For us who are not as informed, it does not seem to make any sense. I have absolutely no idea how Stefan benefits from his media profile but surely you have to question what someone's motives are when they go totally against what everyone else says, even when everyone else does a 180. If Stefan had said that before this clarification from the tribunal, the Premier League had scored some big victories, but City had come out winners by a slight margin. Yet, now that the Premier League has clarified its position it looks like City have emerged as big winners. No one would have questioned his initial assessment. That would not have made him wrong. But he still seems to be suggesting it's just a slight win when everything else seems to be suggesting otherwise. Then, instead of being able to clarify his views in a way us mere mortals understand. He has in my opinion done it in a patronising manner, which just gets people's back up.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with him. They have just not understood where he is coming from, considering his views seem totally against the mood music coming from the club and the media.
Click to expand...
Questioning my "motives". For the 4th time, fuck off.

For the record, I've explained multiple times. If you can write this essay, you can understand what I wrote and what the decision itself says.
 
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...

Using Trigger’s broom to advance an argument is an absolute liberty but genius.
 
calumdown said:
frankly,
all i've learned in the last few hours of my life on this thread is

1) @Didsbury Dave (who btw is neither from didsbury nor called dave) went to konspiracy.

2) @Carlos- the- jackal doesn't know his muffins from his barms.

everything else is going round in circles like women's hour.

all things considered,
i am now of the opinion that if you disagree with what someone else posted
it would make it much better for everyone else if you simply reply "fuck off" to their post and move on.
Click to expand...
The only reason I come on here is for the black hole conversations. Never disappointed.
 
Dribble said:
I was shocked to learn he was supposed to be a City fan.
Click to expand...
He's brilliant at going undercover at City away games, being in the away end, celebrating when City score.
I think that's really going the extra mile to demonstrate excellent dedication to convincing City supporters that he's not a City supporter...

NB I don't know Stefan from Adam & Eve, but I've seen his posts on X, with pics from the crowd of City Home & Away games, it's a massive stretch to even contemplate 'supposed'
 
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