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

bobbyowenquiff said:
I can't find it but it was posted by Tolmie. Meanwhile the public statement from the APT case proves that the PL behaved despicably to City during that process. They delayed and obstructed the discussions at every stage. The Judges said the behaviour was "unfair" and "unlawful." But if you read the whole APT document I believe it shows pure malice and bad faith towards City. You can only imagine what has happened behind the scenes. There must be some damning content in those emails.

Here is the full APT statement. Not exactly light bedtime reading.

Click to expand...
This one is interesting, I didnt know they had to reach a decision on stuff in a time-frame. But I wonder why did the PL delay and breach their own rules?

601. Finally, MCFC alleges that there was an unreasonable delay of many months and/ordelay contrary to Rule E.64 by the PL in reaching its decision. We have held that there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of RuleE.
64.The challenge to the time taken by the PL to reach a decision with regard to the EPTransactionFOR DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER CLUBS AND THE PUBLIC163602. MCFC alleges that there was an unreasonable delay of many months and/or delaycontrary to Rule E.64 by the PL in reaching its decision. We have held that therewas an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
This one is interesting, I didnt know they had to reach a decision on stuff in a time-frame. But I wonder why did the PL delay and breach their own rules?

601. Finally, MCFC alleges that there was an unreasonable delay of many months and/ordelay contrary to Rule E.64 by the PL in reaching its decision. We have held that there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of RuleE.
64.The challenge to the time taken by the PL to reach a decision with regard to the EPTransactionFOR DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER CLUBS AND THE PUBLIC163602. MCFC alleges that there was an unreasonable delay of many months and/or delaycontrary to Rule E.64 by the PL in reaching its decision. We have held that therewas an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64.
Click to expand...
These delays cost us at least one major sponsorship deal worth many millions. The PL apparently claimed they had staff shortages. The PL financial team made life impossible for City. They said some of our sponsor deals were above market value but then refused to explain how they arrived at their own figures. Essentially they took the piss out of our financial chiefs. This has gone on for years. The APT case is the only issue in the public domain so far but there is nothing to suggest the PL has not been just as unethical with us over the 115 investigation. They have acted in bad faith from day one.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
These delays cost us at least one major sponsorship deal worth many millions. The PL apparently claimed they had staff shortages. The PL financial team made life impossible for City. They said some of our sponsor deals were above market value but then refused to explain how they arrived at their own figures. Essentially they took the piss out of our financial chiefs. This has gone on for years. The APT case is the only issue in the public domain but there is nothing to suggest the PL has not been just as unethical with us over the 115 investigation. They have acted in bad faith from day one.
Click to expand...
The PL said the delay was because they had too much to do! They even talked about a member of staff burning the midnight oil.
Ah Diddums.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I can't find it but it was posted by Tolmie. Meanwhile the public statement from the APT case proves that the PL behaved despicably to City during that process. They delayed and obstructed the discussions at every stage. The Judges said the behaviour was "unfair" and "unlawful." But if you read the whole APT document I believe it shows pure malice and bad faith towards City. You can only imagine what has happened behind the scenes. There must be some damning content in those emails.

Here is the full APT statement. Not exactly light bedtime reading.

Click to expand...

Just read a lot of this.
Gorton_Tubster said:
This one is interesting, I didnt know they had to reach a decision on stuff in a time-frame. But I wonder why did the PL delay and breach their own rules?

601. Finally, MCFC alleges that there was an unreasonable delay of many months and/ordelay contrary to Rule E.64 by the PL in reaching its decision. We have held that there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of RuleE.
64.The challenge to the time taken by the PL to reach a decision with regard to the EPTransactionFOR DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER CLUBS AND THE PUBLIC163602. MCFC alleges that there was an unreasonable delay of many months and/or delaycontrary to Rule E.64 by the PL in reaching its decision. We have held that therewas an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64.
Click to expand...

The EAG sponsorship deal was said to be too ‘complex’ and require longer than 10 days.

The PL claimed that the EAG deal would have been equivalent to one clubs entire sponsherhip dealings
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Click to expand...

If true, this means that City will be in dispute one way or another with the Premier League until at least December, or longer depending on how long it takes for a ruling to be made, and that's not withstanding anything to do with '115'.

It would be interesting if the rules are still deemed to be illegal / null & and void, and some clubs have had an extra 6+ months to benefit from them. This really feels like kicking the can down the road.
 
Champions again in 2012 said:
If true, this means that City will be in dispute one way or another with the Premier League until at least December, or longer depending on how long it takes for a ruling to be made, and that's not withstanding anything to do with '115'.

It would be interesting if the rules are still deemed to be illegal / null & and void, and some clubs have had an extra 6+ months to benefit from them. This really feels like kicking the can down the road.
Click to expand...

APT 1 still needs sorting yet!
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I can't find it but it was posted by Tolmie. Meanwhile the public statement from the APT case proves that the PL behaved despicably to City during that process. They delayed and obstructed the discussions at every stage. The Judges said the behaviour was "unfair" and "unlawful." But if you read the whole APT document I believe it shows pure malice and bad faith towards City. You can only imagine what has happened behind the scenes. There must be some damning content in those emails.

Here is the full APT statement. Not exactly light bedtime reading.

Click to expand...
We know who you are....
 

Attachments

  • respondents.png
    respondents.png
    33.7 KB · Views: 363
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