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

slbsn said:
Sorry you mean with the Etihad contract or Etihad's issue?
Click to expand...

As in UEFA’s case was that Mansour was funding the Etihad contract by paying it for them but channeled from ADUG to Etihad and then to us.

If that was the case, and assuming the PL’s argument is the same, surely any potentially fraudulent reporting would be at either Adug or Etihad rather than ourselves?

Or is the PLs argument more than that?
 
meltonblue said:
As in UEFA’s case was that Mansour was funding the Etihad contract by paying it for them but channeled from ADUG to Etihad and then to us.

If that was the case, and assuming the PL’s argument is the same, surely any potentially fraudulent reporting would be at either Adug or Etihad rather than ourselves?

Or is the PLs argument more than that?
Click to expand...
Think it is more and related to City's end.
 
slbsn said:
I don’t see why Etihad would be waved through. Unless City decided to sign it after the initial decision and before the New APT Rules. I also don’t think this means every historic APT is automatically approved. But obviously guessing.
Click to expand...

:) I must sound like a real dumb fuck to anyone who sees this clearly.

But to my simple, non-legal mind, the APT rules being found to be null and void means that they effectively didn't exist at all in the period during which the club wanted to sign the contract. In which case, the club should now be able to sign the original contract and/or claim damages for any losses incurred.

I don't see how it can be equitable for the PL to claim the contract is now covered by the newly lawful (if, indeed, they are) rules. Which would explain APT 2 if, for example, the PL informed the club in December that they were about to re-assess the Etihad transaction.

No problem if you haven't got the strength to explain it. I barely had the strength to write it :)
 
slbsn said:
Even if you think that, the club would have guided in a different direction if the concensus was wrong. Every journalist with City connections describes the situation the same (eg Sam Lee, Simon Bajowski, Martin Blackburn, Matt Slater, Dan Sheldon, Paul Hirst)
Click to expand...
That isn’t really answering the question mate, is it?
 
Just got round to watching @slbsn on talk-sport and I have to say he was very good.

It’s such a hard topic to articulate but you did manage to do that without losing the audience.
 
@slbsn

I just saw your last interview and agreed with most of what you said except when the guy next to you who is I think Newcastle supporter asked why there should be a rule ! why can't Newcastle owners spend whatever they want ( something like that )


Any busniess owner in the universe can invest on his business by any of the following:

1- Spend whatever he earned to make his business bigger
2- Take a loan and invest
3- Take from his own pocket and invest, thats not a crime and never was until the Cartel decided to prevent us from growing rapidly


For Example, if you read the history of of AC Milan and how they become a global club after Silvio Berlusconi became the owner in 1986. The club was in debt, yet he broke every transfer record and no one could compete with him in the transfer market, and thats how he built an empire in Italy.

Even Real Madrid, if you want to go 80 or 20 years back when they purchased the best players and no one could compete with them, it wasn't financed by their revenue. They always had abnormal power ( financial or political ) that put them million miles ahead of the rest.


Why is it ok for the world that Getafe can't compete with Madrid or Milan for a player

Why everyone feel sorry if Newcastle or City came and blow them out of the water by buying the best available players ?

As long as the owners are not taking loans that will put the club at risk, then they should be free to spend whatever they want on their business.

In Summer 2008 or 2009, Spain was almost bankrupt, yet Perez managed to get loans from the bank to build new galactico.


That whole Financial fair play rule, is unfair.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) I must sound like a real dumb fuck to anyone who sees this clearly.

But to my simple, non-legal mind, the APT rules being found to be null and void means that they effectively didn't exist at all in the period during which the club wanted to sign the contract. In which case, the club should now be able to sign the original contract and/or claim damages for any losses incurred.

I don't see how it can be equitable for the PL to claim the contract is now covered by the newly lawful (if, indeed, they are) rules. Which would explain APT 2 if, for example, the PL informed the club in December that they were about to re-assess the Etihad transaction.

No problem if you haven't got the strength to explain it. I barely had the strength to write it :)
Click to expand...
I just don't think that is how it works but maybe you are correct.

If you mean City can claim damages for FAB then potentially as in the explainer I did. I don't think it means Etihad is simply fully agreed on submission. But yes again, City can claim damages but I am not convinced they have losses in 24/25. Future losses not sure. And if not signed, it now needs to be submitted for FMV.
 
Last edited:
Tevez City said:
@slbsn

I just saw your last interview and agreed with most of what you said except when the guy next to you who is I think Newcastle supporter asked why there should be a rule ! why can't Newcastle owners spend whatever they want ( something like that )


Any busniess owner in the universe can invest on his business by any of the following:

1- Spend whatever he earned to make his business bigger
2- Take a loan and invest
3- Take from his own pocket and invest, thats not a crime and never was until the Cartel decided to prevent us from growing rapidly


For Example, if you read the history of of AC Milan and how they become a global club after Silvio Berlusconi became the owner in 1986. The club was in debt, yet he broke every transfer record and no one could compete with him in the transfer market, and thats how he built an empire in Italy.

Even Real Madrid, if you want to go 80 or 20 years back when they purchased the best players and no one could compete with them, it wasn't financed by their revenue. They always had abnormal power ( financial or political ) that put them million miles ahead of the rest.


Why is it ok for the world that Getafe can't compete with Madrid or Milan for a player

Why everyone feel sorry if Newcastle or City came and blow them out of the water by buying the best available players ?

As long as the owners are not taking loans that will put the club at risk, then they should be free to spend whatever they want on their business.

In Summer 2008 or 2009, Spain was almost bankrupt, yet Perez managed to get loans from the bank to build new galactico.


That whole Financial fair play rule, is unfair.
Click to expand...
You can't have no rules at all IMO
 
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