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

Nightmare Walking said:
I wasn't speaking to you you and I was not conversing with you.

I apologise profusely if your media profile does not benefit you in any way. But if it does, surely you can understand why people would question your opinion when it goes against what the club and now the rest of the media are suggesting. If you don't undcouldn't resist eithererstand why people would be questioning your assessments considering your media profile, then you exhibit a complete lack of self awareness.

Nothing in my last post deserves being told to fuck off. It was perfectly fair. You carry on if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...
Yup fuck off. I could resist either
 
slbsn said:
Unlikely doesn't mean necessarily slim - I don't think I said slim. If you are confirming that I said what I said, I agree. I said what I said.

Not in the slightest bit distancing myself from my initial view based on a single article in the Times. Why would I. Based on the information at the time (ie before we had the initial decision) that was my reasoned view.
Click to expand...
This has to be the most lawyery response on this thread ;).
 
Last edited:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
No need to take up bandwidth telling us.
Let it go.
 
Some short time ago on here there was a discussion about City's aim in challenging the APT rules. My view was that, after more than 15 years of rules and rule changes which, if not specifically to protect a small number of established clubs, were to punish and ultimately to destroy our club, City simply wanted to play in a competition governed by rules which were legal, fair, the same for all and administered even handedly by the governing body. This may be the import of the award yesterday.

As yet we don't know what financial consequences may flow from the verdict, but they aren't important in that our revenues are very healthy anyway. All City need is financial fair play. And yesterday was a step towards it. It was also a humiliating defeat for the PL and, in particular, Masters. The PL has assured everyone that they are more capable than anyone to regulate the league and that government plans are hastily prepared and thus doomed to be inadequate. Now all can see clearly the greave failings of the PL and also the kneejerk reaction to the initial award. The consequences may be far greater, especially when PL clubs get the bills from their rogue regime.
 
johnny crossan said:
So return to Sherringham's ex et al 1:35 onwards - "Manchester City have released a statement 'the club remains confident they will be vindicated for a third time...." still searching for this club statement. Was it just to SKY?
Click to expand...
excuse me interrupting the flow here but has our club's official statement on this judgement been discussed at all? Has anyone even seen it?
 
Catching up in the car before the game.
Christ!
Reading this today reminds me of White Men Can’t Jump.

“Sometimes when you win, you really lose. And sometimes when you lose, you really win. And sometimes when you win or lose, you actually tie, and sometimes when you tie, you actually win or lose. Winning or losing is all one organic mechanism, from which one extracts what one needs.”

I don’t care what the future brings regarding APT, I’m just enjoying giving those cunts at the PL a bloody nose.
 
slbsn said:
If you keep questioning my motives and other comments about my integrity then I will keep responding (if I see it).
Click to expand...
You seem very defensive, extremely patronising and having your only riposte as 'Fuck Off' does not really show you in a good light. Especially as you are an educated and intelligent man.

I have absolutely no intention of being part of any pile up on you and have remained ultimately respectful towards you. It is you who has resorted to profanities.

It would clearly not be in your interests for you to say "I got that wrong". Now surely you can see why people would say hold on a minute. What you're saying seems totally at odds with what we are all hearing from other sources. You're the expert, not us. Myself and others may have put 2 + 2 together and = 56. We may be totally wrong here, but surely you can understand why we have put 2 + 2 together. If not, that shows a total lack of self awareness.

I have not seen a single person state you are wrong. Most of us do not have a clue whether you are right or wrong. But, you're not discussing these topics in a chamber with lots of other educated law scholars. You're talking on a Manchester City forum with a load of predominantly working class lads, from a whole host of different backgrounds, who are not as knowledgeable as you on these topics.

When most of us hear null and void, unlawful, unfair and now most media outlets suggesting its a massive win for City. There are even reports on Sky quoting City saying it is seismic. We are pretty confused when you say its not.

Yet you seem to be suggesting it's still big wins for the Premier League and just a slight win for City.

Instead of then being able to communicate your views so the rest of us can understand your analysis. You state that you have read the decisions where as we have not, you do it in an obnoxious manner and then resort to profanities.

We all might be thick on here and I have no doubt you are sat there saying what an idiot, how can he be so stupid? But, if you can't understand why we are so confused and why we would be questioning your motives considering what you are suggesting goes totally against what City are saying, you're just as thick as the rest of us.
 
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...
Hang on a moment. If the rules are void, there is no APT contract with the PL so we can't claim breach of contract.

So:

If the PL interfered with City's contract negotiations, under the PL's unlawful and now void rules, where does any remedy lie? Because of the PL's unlawful interference, City contracted with Etihad for a lower consideration than we had negotiated. There must be some remedy against an unlawful restrictive trade practice that has cost City money.

I might explore here after the match:
competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk

Trade Associations: are you complying with competition law? – Competition and Markets Authority

Are you a member of an industry of trade association? If so, you should check you and your association are playing by the right rules. The constitutions, decisions and recommendations of trade associations and how their members behave have
competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk
 
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