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

[Coatigan]

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 understand 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.

While I have disagreed and said my bit on it, I don't think his opinion goes 'against the club'. Against the run of the narrative, maybe, not really against the club. Tbh, not sure why people are so desperate to feel attacked.

As for motives, I couldn't care if he was or wasn't a City supporter, a lawyer first a blue second, vice versa, a red, or a talk sport shareholder. I disagree not out of mistrust, but because I have my take. If I were to agree or take on board points I hadn't considered (which has also happened) it would be not out of trusting the fact he is a blue, but because I thought them valid.

People need to start being a bit more grown up, imho.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Such a lovely, happy, forum.....

What will it be like if we ever have a slight loss?

 

[Vic]

Looking forward to all this court room bollocks being over so we can get back to the football.

I'd pay good money to be in the Tribunal when Pannick is making his moves.

"Mr Masters, I think you strayed offside there..."

 

[blue is best]

I would assume their spite will soon turn towards the tarquins and dippers for destroying football with their interest free loans.

Hahaha, don’t hold your breath though ;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

While I have disagreed and said my bit on it, I don't think his opinion goes 'against the club'. Against the run of the narrative, maybe, not really against the club. Tbh, not sure why people are so desperate to feel attacked.

As for motives, I couldn't care if he was or wasn't a City supporter, a lawyer first a blue second, vice versa, a red, or a talk sport shareholder. I disagree not out of mistrust, but because I have my take. If I were to agree or take on board points I hadn't considered (which has also happened) it would be not out of trusting the fact he is a blue, but because I thought them valid.

People need to start being a bit more grown up, imho.

People need to start realising you can't tell a lawyer he was wrong, imho.

;)

 

[KS55]

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.

This is insulting rubbish about a knowledgeable guy expressing his honest opinion.

 

[slbsn]

Hang on a moment. If the rules are void, there is no 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:

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

There is a contract but the APT section is null and void. If there was no contract who would City take action against anyway. But the second decision says clearly there is a contract

 

[slbsn]

Since then he didn't answer another of my questions because he didn't understand it, even after I tried to explain it again.

I believe you have had that problem as well .....

Sorry missed it

 

[Centurions]

Sorry missed it

It didn't make any more sense the 2nd go around TBF, you've not missed much ;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

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:

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

The contract has to comply with English law. It didn't. Is that the breach?

 

[slbsn]

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.

Not reading another of your pointless essays. Sorry.

Ask yourself why it is only you and Dribble that’s extracted a fuck off. Probably had about 100 different people reply. Why are you in the 1-2%. Maybe it isn’t because of me.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sorry missed it

:) Good choice. I'll try again tomorrow when I sober up. After a few drinks is the only way to watch a City match these days .....

Hic!!

 

[laserblue]

message from a rag mate

him: seems like city have played the card they always rely on... paying people megamoney to keep quiet.

me: which people, to be quiet about what?

him: city bigwigs have paid the premier league bigwigs off to smooth things over.

me: they lost in court.

him: a paid court.

 

[johnny crossan]

Anyone happened to see the full considered opinion of our legal team as contained in the official club statement on the tribunal judgement as quoted extensively on SKY Sports TV?

 

[bigA]

Why do I get the feeling that the PL are going to keep on trying to railroad clubs into accepting their APT rules no matter how many times they are deemed unlawful and therefore unenforceable.

 

[laserblue]

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)."

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

-----------

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.

Masters is desperately trying to cling on to his job.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

.....After a few drinks is the only way to watch a City match.....

Is that really just water in the bottle that Pep has during the match?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Anyone happened to see the full considered opinion of our legal team as contained in the official club statement on the tribunal judgement as quoted extensively on SKY Sports TV?

I asked that hours ago but no-one has seen it apparently ....

 

[Vic]

There is a contract but the APT section is null and void. If there was no contract who would City take action against anyway. But the second decision says clearly there is a contract

Then we presumably have to argue that the unfairness of the APT Rules breaches other provisions in the contract, e.g. on acting impartially with all members or simply on acting lawfully.

That could add a few pages to the thread!

 

[cheekybids]

People need to start realising you can't tell a lawyer he was wrong, imho.

;)

You can in here, it’s a great leveller bluemoon. In other threads you’ve got people telling Pep he doesn’t know how to coach so no reason why this lawyering is for the qualified lawyers.