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

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...
Absolutely, the rags used to boast about doing world record sponsorship deals and there wasn't a peep. It didn't seem that unfair either tbh because at the time they were the most successful club in the league and up there with the best in Europe. As soon as it's someone else other than the old 'sky 4' then suddenly fmv is a concern. I don't need to repeat what city have achieved on the field in the last few years, but it would suggest that fmv is at least a fuck load more than any club that hasn't matched our success gets.
Apologies if I'm mixing fmv and apt.
 
bluwes said:
I think you’re just trolling with that post cos most of you’re posts are normally quite positive
Click to expand...
As I posted some time ago - listen to the podcast.
johnny crossan said:
Stefan you've just told us City have absolutely nowhere to go if these incredibly serious charges aren't proved to be clearly false and now you've also omitted your previous predictions that it is extremely unlikely for them to stick.
Are you under contract to an anti-depressant company?
Click to expand...
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Absolutely, the rags used to boast about doing world record sponsorship deals and there wasn't a peep. It didn't seem that unfair either tbh because at the time they were the most successful club in the league and up there with the best in Europe. As soon as it's someone else other than the old 'sky 4' then suddenly fmv is a concern. I don't need to repeat what city have achieved on the field in the last few years, but it would suggest that fmv is at least a fuck load more than any club that hasn't matched our success gets.
Apologies if I'm mixing fmv and apt.
Click to expand...

The APT rules or something similar to them was an inevitability as soon as they allowed the Newcastle deal in particular to go through.
 
slbsn said:
A 12 week trial to debate a subject accounting classification from 15 years ago and repeated in audits over and over? Sure.

Wishful thinking in the extreme. And clearly if the allegations of fraud were misplaced, both parties would have guided the press away from such a position.

Be great if you are right though.
Click to expand...
Of course it wasn't just about related parties. I suspect the PL also pulled the disguised equity investment stunt, despite it being demolished at CAS. I also suspect legal arguments took up at least a couple of weeks (admissibility of evidence, level of proof etc.) plus there was Fordham & Mancini. There was probably stuff about the other charges - FFP, PSR and non-cooperation. I guess they went into far more depth regarding the allegations and rebuttals.

But although we know it took 12 weeks end-to-end, we don't know for sure whether that was 5 full days a week for those 12 weeks (whatever a full day is in those circles) or it was the equivalent of 6 weeks over those 12. I don't know how these things work but it's possible that members of the various legal teams had other urgent cases that required their presence over that 3-month period.

I've no doubt that everything the PL could possibly throw at us came up in the hearing and that we took every action we could to counter. I'm not saying that the issue of related parties was the only thing discussed but what I've said is I believe that's been a major angle of attack by our adversaries. I'd say that a significant portion of the hearing was devoted to that issue.
 
slbsn said:
Cheers mate.
Click to expand...

Apologies if this has been asked before but do you think there's a possibility that the anchoring rules aren't coming in next season because a club or clubs have threatened legal action?

I think the 2 clubs most affected by the rules would be City and utd?
 
calumdown said:
do you honestly think that city fans reading this thread are unaware of the narrative you speak of?


okay
let me tell you a story...

when i was young we had a big family trip to whitby for the weekend.

my grandfather was treating everyone.
he'd had a seismic victory on the pools
(although some were saying it was only a small win)

while we were away all our neighbours became bitter,
telling people that my grandad was a cheat.

in whitby, though, we were generally in a good mood,
discussing the win and other interesting things.
and it should have been celebratory all weekend.
but there was one family member seemingly determined to piss on everyone's chips.
us kids called him "uncle prannock".

all weekend he kept going on about negative things.
some folk humoured him,
but most became tired of his narrative.


you remind me of my uncle prannock.
Click to expand...
Prannock on the streets of Whitby -:)
 
All the legal jargon and back and forth, whilst anyone's expertise and experience is appreciated, pardon my ignorance but are we in any way shape or form close to any kind of verdict and announcement?
 
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