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

blueparrot said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've never questioned Stefan's legal ability or professionalism, just his curious approach to City. Put it like this, I'd be shit scared if he was my brief & my fortune or liberty depended on "dry considered" demeanour.

I can only look at this situation as to how I'd handle it, & tbh it'd totally different to what I've seen so far from Stefan.

A. Regarding the evidence, none of us have seen it, so why's a supposed City fans swimming against the tide of opinion proferred by our elite legal team?

Can you at least explain that to me, as I'm struggling to get it.

B. Also, why's he never gotten to the heart of our alleged criminality & asked Sly Sports & Talkshite why they've never asked HMRC, SFO, Companies House or the police to comment on our allegations & if they're investigating/have ever investigated City?

Don't you think this would kill all notions of our alleged criminality stone dead?

Can you shed light on these specific points.
 
wolviedinho said:
Some posters live in a bluemoon hyperbole.

When a reputable posters says something, many flock to find some sort of balance in the face of continued negative reporting. So I can understand why the need to defend.

What I find interesting is that posters can’t or won’t just say they got it wrong instead it’s dressed up with legal terms and nuanced in such a way as to dumbfound the regular fan.

City’s own words read out on Sky clearly show a club claiming victory. I would love to see the full statement.

What we all need to remember is that this is a forum on the internet not a courtroom. Many actors have vested interested in how they are portrayed and you can see the typical city fans reaction who has no skin in the game compared to the online personality.

My final take, city know far more than any of us as to what we have won today and what deals have or have not been restricted. The assumptions made on here are wildly speculative based on scraps of information.

It’s no wonder it ain’t clear.

Anyone challenging the clubs statement today would need to he able to back that up with equally damming legal knowledge/evidence to support their claim. Anything else is either acting in bad faith and causing conflict within the ranks

Anyway, what do I know, I’m just a typically city fan.
Click to expand...
That is the killer point for me. How can Stefan both admit he's not in receipt of the full facts surrounding the allegations or evidence offered, but then call into question the official club statement from our crack legal team who are? It makes zero sense & should come as no surprise that people are questioning his motives.

Essentially he's enabling those who still believe we're cheats & as guilty as sin regardless of the IC's findings. They believe we've not won on the evidence presented, but by loopholes in the process (time bars etc) & all this serves to do is prolong the bullshit we're all having to endure.

A reminder... Unlawful, Unfair, Unreasonable & now officially null & void. That seems pretty clear cut to me & most others, but Stefan disagrees with our legal team & the IC whilst admitting he's not in receipt of the full facts to even form a proper independent conclusion of his own.

I find this troubling & a bit weird, hence why I suspect his main concern is protecting his media profile rather than giving a full-blooded honest defence of City based on the conclusions reached by the IC & our preeminent legal team.
 
Dribble said:
That is the killer point for me. How can Stefan both admit he's not in receipt of the full facts surrounding the allegations or evidence offered, but then call into question the official club statement from our crack legal team who are? It makes zero sense & should come as no surprise that people are questioning his motives.

Essentially he's enabling those who still believe we're cheats & as guilty as sin regardless of the IC's findings. They believe we've not won on the evidence presented, but by loopholes in the process (time bars etc) & all this serves to do is prolong the bullshit we're all having to endure.

A reminder... Unlawful, Unfair, Unreasonable & now officially null & void. That seems pretty clear cut to me & most others, but Stefan disagrees with our legal team & the IC whilst admitting he's not in receipt of the full facts to even form a proper independent conclusion of his own.

I find this troubling & a bit weird, hence why I suspect his main concern is protecting his media profile rather than giving a full-blooded honest defence of City based on the conclusions reached by the IC & our preeminent legal team.
Click to expand...
All very good reasonable salient points. I don’t agree with the perceived pile on but I guess “all posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others”.

A win is clear in my mind. I can’t speak for others. It doesn’t really matter anyway. As long as the club deem this ruling as “seismic” then that is good enough for me.

Anything else is chronic doublespeak.
 
slbsn said:
Hey Dribble, fuck off.

You've been banging this shit point about the police and Companies House (Companies House that have no investigatory powers whatsoever) for weeks despite lots of people explaining it was wide of the mark. I am not even sure you understand that this thread isn't even about the 115 case.

Nobody in the media has ever told me what angle to take - be it pro or anti City and City are NOT only one situation I am asked about. On APT when everyone was claiming City taking on the PL was the end of football, I was the single person in the media explaining it was nothing of the sort and that if rules are unlawful, it should be uncontroversial that they are changed (eg and ).

Furthermore, almost every comment on Youtube is that I am literally paid by City and completely biased to City.

So maybe it is simply your ignorance or bias that means you can't comprehend objectivity.

But honestly, just fuck off. Stop talking about my views when you don't even understand them.
Click to expand...

Hi Stefan

Allow me to boil this down to the basics. Firstly you've separated out Companies House. Why?

Now far be it from me to try to educate you, but knowingly submitting false returns to CH is a criminal offence which could result in jail time.

Exhibit A:

www.gov.uk

UK’s ‘first ever’ successful prosecution for false company information

A company director has been fined for deliberately falsifying information about his firms in what is thought to be the first-ever conviction of its kind.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Deliberately filing false information on the register is a serious offence and people who have been found to have knowingly done this can face prosecution.
Click to expand...

Business Minister Andrew Griffiths said:

This prosecution – the first of its kind in the UK – shows the Government will come down hard on people who knowingly break the law and file false information on the company register.

Companies House works hard to protect and continually upgrade the company register, identifying potentially criminal activities and working closely with law enforcement bodies to help bring those perpetrators to justice.
Click to expand...

In respect to the police, HMRC & the SFO, what City are effectively being accused of is industrial scale fraud. I find it hard to believe that these statutory bodies don't have any football fans amongst them who're aware of the grave allegations against City, so can you explain to me why (to our knowledge):

A: They've not investigated City?
B: Aren't investigating City?
C: Don't intend to investigate City?

Also, can you ascertain or ask SSN or TS the next time you're on if they've ever contacted the authorities for comment on City's alleged criminality, & any action pending, taken or intended?

If they have, what were the responses they received? (Even the standard "We don't comment on ongoing investigations" is a smoking gun for City)

If neither SSN or TS have contacted the authorities, why haven't they?

Finally, has any of this crossed your mind at any point? Thanks in advance...
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
This is insulting rubbish about a knowledgeable guy expressing his honest opinion.
Click to expand...
I've never questioned Stefan's legal knowledge. However I find his motives & methodology questionable, especially as he seems to be swimming against the tide of official club statements by City's legal team, & now the IC's findings of APT null & void.

In terms of Stefan's "opinion", whose assessment of City situation do you place more weight on? The one who admits they don't have any inside information so are just stating personal opinions, or the legal team who do have all the inside info?
 
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...
Seeing as you believe my point isn't that amazing (for the avoidance of doubt, I've never claimed it was), perhaps you'd take a stab at answering it for me?
 
Dribble said:
I've never questioned Stefan's legal knowledge. However I find his motives & methodology questionable, especially as he seems to be swimming against the tide of official club statements by City's legal team, & now the IC's findings of APT null & void.

In terms of Stefan's "opinion", whose assessment of City situation do you place more weight on? The one who admits they don't have any inside information so are just stating personal opinions, or the legal team who do have all the inside info?
Click to expand...
That’s not the point. The point is your nonsensical attack. Don’t believe him if you want but don’t call into question this motives so egregiously.
 
wolviedinho said:
All very good reasonable salient points. I don’t agree with the perceived pile on but I guess “all posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others”.

A win is clear in my mind. I can’t speak for others. It doesn’t really matter anyway. As long as the club deem this ruling as “seismic” then that is good enough for me.

Anything else is chronic doublespeak.
Click to expand...
Agreed about pile-ons, but what else can be done when an individual is seemingly swimming against the tide of Manchester City, their fans & now the IC?

I don't see this as a win per se, I see it as validation of our position for appealing the PL's obvious stitch up in respect to our sponsorship.

I suppose there'll be some form of APT, but as to how effective it'll be going forward is questionable. City's achievements over the last 10 years are unparalleled in English football, so what metric can possibly be used to judge our sponsorship potential?

We're literally rewriting the sponsorship landscape as I type. Most of all, I still don't get how you can legally circumnavigate the value that someone places on a service, product or "priceless" article.

I saw an article about a painting being sold for $130m at auction. To me it's just canvas & oil based artist paint. To others it's beautiful art that will massively appreciate in value over the years.

I suppose buying it as an investment (if you can afford it) is worth it. But for me, I'd quite happily settle for a print of it for £30 from Harpurhey Market.

My question is, how can you place an arbitrary value on what something's worth to someone? Also, where will the PL draw the line? Will they start dictating what they think players are worth before sanctioning transfers? How much we can sell chicken balti pies for?

What a wicked web they've woven in their pursuit of Manchester City hey?
 


Welcome to the dark side.

Btw @slbsn I have sobered up now and remembered my question. There was a discussion about retrospectively applying interest to shareholder loans.

My point was that retrospective interest is now moot, presumably as:
- the judgment only relates to APT, and
- voiding the rules means there are no APT assessments to which interest should be applied, anyway.

So there are only two questions left in respect of interest , I think:

i) are the November transitional provisions lawful (in the case the amendments as a whole are deemed lawful, which isn't a given), ie can you transition from unlawful to lawful over a period?

ii) do these judgments mean that the treatment of interest in the FFP/PSR assessments is also unlawful, in which case do the old assessments have to be restated (probably needs a different arbitration?)?

Having read it again, I'm not sure this is any clearer. But it's my last attempt everyone will be pleased to know.
 
halfcenturyup said:


Welcome to the dark side.

Btw @slbsn I have sobered up now and remembered my question. There was a discussion about retrospectively applying interest to shareholder loans.

My point was that retrospective interest is now moot, presumably as:
- the judgment only relates to APT, and
- voiding the rules means there are no APT assessments to which interest should be applied, anyway.

So there are only two questions left in respect of interest , I think:

i) are the November transitional provisions lawful (in the case the amendments as a whole are deemed lawful, which isn't a given), ie can you transition from unlawful to lawful over a period?

ii) do these judgments mean that the treatment of interest in the FFP/PSR assessments is also unlawful, in which case do the old assessments have to be restated (probably needs a different arbitration?)?

Having read it again, I'm not sure this is any clearer. But it's my last attempt everyone will be pleased to know.
Click to expand...


I think I know what you mean but a lawyer may not ;)
 
TCM said:
FFS, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Let it go, you are not going to appease and please everyone. Differing views are allowed.

And with the content of some of your posts, you are coming across as an arrogant prick.
Click to expand...

If you haven't read all the thread he is mainly defending himself trying to explain the apt and this video is part of that! It's not his fault that some posters like me mainly can't grasp what's he is putting across at best has he can to us no noughts!
 
Dribble said:
I've never questioned Stefan's legal ability or professionalism, just his curious approach to City. Put it like this, I'd be shit scared if he was my brief & my fortune or liberty depended on "dry considered" demeanour.

I can only look at this situation as to how I'd handle it, & tbh it'd totally different to what I've seen so far from Stefan.

A. Regarding the evidence, none of us have seen it, so why's a supposed City fans swimming against the tide of opinion proferred by our elite legal team?

Can you at least explain that to me, as I'm struggling to get it.

B. Also, why's he never gotten to the heart of our alleged criminality & asked Sly Sports & Talkshite why they've never asked HMRC, SFO, Companies House or the police to comment on our allegations & if they're investigating/have ever investigated City?

Don't you think this would kill all notions of our alleged criminality stone dead?

Can you shed light on these specific points.
Click to expand...
Dribble said:
That is the killer point for me. How can Stefan both admit he's not in receipt of the full facts surrounding the allegations or evidence offered, but then call into question the official club statement from our crack legal team who are? It makes zero sense & should come as no surprise that people are questioning his motives.

Essentially he's enabling those who still believe we're cheats & as guilty as sin regardless of the IC's findings. They believe we've not won on the evidence presented, but by loopholes in the process (time bars etc) & all this serves to do is prolong the bullshit we're all having to endure.

A reminder... Unlawful, Unfair, Unreasonable & now officially null & void. That seems pretty clear cut to me & most others, but Stefan disagrees with our legal team & the IC whilst admitting he's not in receipt of the full facts to even form a proper independent conclusion of his own.

I find this troubling & a bit weird, hence why I suspect his main concern is protecting his media profile rather than giving a full-blooded honest defence of City based on the conclusions reached by the IC & our preeminent legal team.
Click to expand...

I would normally not even bother responding to this pish.

But, without being a condescending prick, mate, not only have you completely misunderstood what Stefan has claimed here, but you have concocted some warped reality bubble of it all. At the very least, you are on the wrong fucking thread!

If you can't follow very basic points made, I suggest you don't bother expanding the shit out of it as you have done, and then looking for odd motivation in it.

Look, not that I am or would need to 'defend' Stefan here, I myself have disagreed with his take and argued with him. Sometimes politely, sometimes tersely, sometimes sarcastically, depending on his tone, my mood, the general forum atmosphere at the time.

But I'm sorry, this level of layering that just doesn't exist there, based on things that have not actually been implied, never mind said, I feel needs called the nonsense it is.

Nonsense.

There.
 
Last edited:
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