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

slbsn said:
Oh wow, you are right. My mistake, hadn't seen this before.

"The Premier League have held up City's accounts, sponsors, financial and sporting progress for a year. We are nailed on for damages and we are gonna get aggrevated damages too. We don't need to show the usual basic requirements of loss as that Slough based supporter said on Blue Moon. We look forward to receiving £1bn soon because the Premier League ruined our season."
Click to expand...

Nothing about boiling cartell piss?
 
slbsn said:
Oh wow, you are right. My mistake, hadn't seen this before.

"The Premier League have held up City's accounts, sponsors, financial and sporting progress for a year. We are nailed on for damages and we are gonna get aggrevated damages too. We don't need to show the usual basic requirements of loss as that Slough based supporter said on Blue Moon. We look forward to receiving £1bn soon because the Premier League ruined our season."
Click to expand...
Who's the Slough based supporter?
 
slbsn said:
Do you ever wonder if maybe this amazing point you think you have isn't that amazing which is why nobody engages with it except to tell you it isn't an amazing point.

If City want me as a paid spokesperson, they know where to find me. They do not need my charity.

Until then, I'll keep giving my objective view. Hope that helps fathom my approach.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't actually. All you said is that his point is crap. That doesn't help explain anything
 
Beaker said:
He hasn't fallen on his sword yet, I suppose, primarily because no one else is genuinely interested in the position until the 115 case is settled. When that comes to an end, I don't think many people will want to be the sitting CEO because of the enormous ramifications from the Premier League side if City wins that one, as most of us suspect they will.
Given the serious damage done to his legacy and reputation, I hope he takes pleasure in counting the money he has made. It is possible that he may be remembered as the worst executive in English football history.
Click to expand...
Why sacrifice him now? Let him take theat step when he can be made responsible for everything that City and other clubs may legally win.
His demise won't change things as the red puppeteers are still flouting the law.
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 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.
Click to expand...
Just a point on clubs we may support and nothing to do with your dual with Stefan.

I note that Lord P is an Arsenal season ticket holder and a HOL member. He has a job that involves legal matters so works for us against the red cartel and voices his opinion about the need for an independant regulator.

Is he likely to be critised for his opinions and work choices by Arsenal supporters?
 
bluemonkey71 said:
Can some explain why we fought the previous rule when the current rules are most likely to be legal?
Click to expand...

I just fed your question into ChatGPT, while I'm waiting for my drink.

Manchester City fought the previous Associated Party Transactions (APT) rules because they believed those rules were unlawful and unenforceable. The main issue was that the rules exempted shareholder loans from financial calculations, which City argued breached competition law. An independent tribunal agreed with City, ruling that the previous APT rules were void.

The current APT rules, introduced in November 2024, attempted to address these issues. However, Manchester City has launched another legal challenge against these amended rules, arguing that they are still not lawful. The outcome of this challenge will be critical in determining the future shape of the Premier League and whether there should be limits on sponsorship deals and loans with companies associated with a club’s owners
 
bluemonkey71 said:
Can some explain why we fought the previous rule when the current rules are most likely to be legal?
Click to expand...

We are always two steps behind.


Because there wouldn't have been any cha ges to the rules to try make them lawful, had we not challenged, and won back in November, on the old rules.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’ve said he’s wrong.
 
Everyone waffles on about Draper's post but I thought Barney Ronay's column was far worse. Though after the Rodri banner I think it's safe to say he's got an axe to grind.
 
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