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

[GLBlue1995]

I can’t see Khaldoon accepting that, not after what he said.

Completely fair. And there's a part of me that agrees with you. But my work experience tells me that is something we need to consider might be on the horizon.

 

[mike1923]

Read ‘SamLFCYNWA’ reply to this, not sure he understands the concept of irony!!

The elite rich …

No club in England has ever spent so much in a transfer window as Liverpool have just done. And no club in England has ever spent as much on one player as Liverpool have just done (twice in one window)

 

[Coatigan]

I don't read that statement as any kind of a win. Sorry, I don't.

We challenged the rules, and they were deemed unlawful. Win1.

We argued that made the rules null and void, and that shareholder loans needed to be looked at retrospectively. The PL argued our interpretation of this, that the rules were fine with a tweak or two. A second ruling followed, outlining the rules were indeed null and void, and a return to the '21 rules would be lawaful. Win2.

The PL voted on new rules, a tweak to the November rules. City challenged them again, arguing ther were still unlawful. And were confident in proving that a third time. Including retaining the point made about shareholder loans.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how issuing a statement that claims City accept the ATP rules as valid, after that, is the win people make it out to be.

If the club were that confident, that is a pretty substantial turnaround. A settlement, sure, in other forms and shapes. But on that fundamental principle, that reads like the club conceding their 3rd challenge was not as valid as they thought, and the PL may have got this one right.

On the refusal to comment further, I really hope no such thing happens with the 115, and the club say what they want to say on behalf of Manchester City. Whatever the outcome of the verdict.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

So a good day then for us.
Shit day for Villa,Newcastle etc
Hamstrung forever

 

[Coatigan]

Mail already changed their headline from City Win.
Red Cartel will have been on the phone lead by Neil Ashton.

So they have.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Stan Collymore is nothing more than a woman-beating, drug abusing bully. A **** of a man who, other than talksport (surprise surprise), nobody cares about other than his, woman-beating, drug abusing, bully-self.

****.

And you it appears mate.
He's a prick. Let it.go

 

[slbsn]

I would say that state-owned organisations from the same country as the owners (e.g. state airlines, banks, telecom companies) are no longer classified as Associated Parties under the APT rules.

No chance and anyway could only be a carve out if in the rules. Not in the PL's unilateral gift to change the rules in that way

 

[jrb]

I don't read that statement as any kind of a win. Sorry, I don't.

We challenged the rules, and they were deemed unlawful. Win1.

We argued that made the rules null and void, and that shareholder loans needed to be looked at retrospectively. The PL argued our interpretation of this, that the rules were fine with a tweak or two. A second ruling followed, outlining the rules were indeed null and void, and a return to the '21 rules would be lawaful.

The PL voted on new rules, a tweak to the November rules. City challenged them again, arguing ther were still unlawful. And were confident in proving that a third time. Including retaining the point made about shareholder loans.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how issuing a statement that claims City accept the ATP rules as valid, after that, is the win people make it out to be.

If the club were that confident, that is a pretty substantial turnaround. A settlement, sure, in other forms and shapes. But on that fundamental principle, that reads like the club conceding their 3rd challenge was not as valid as they thought, and the PL may have got this one right.

On the refusal to comment further, I really hope no such thing happens with the 115, and the club say what they want to say on behalf of Manchester City. Whatever the outcome of the verdict.

FFS!

I was just going to post this.

Ah, f*ck, I still will. :-)



Over to the OS!

 

[Fred_Quimby]

BBC insinuating that it was a City climb down.

APT rules Premier League: Man City end dispute over sponsor rules

Manchester City and the Premier League reach a settlement in their dispute over the rules that govern commercial deals.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[chris63]

 

[Ric]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how issuing a statement that claims City accept the ATP rules as valid, after that, is the win people make it out to be.

The PL tried to block a hugely lucrative extension of our Etihad deal, and now it's going to be approved. I see that as a pretty significant win.

 

[stan bowles]

We've won. Probably a strategic play with other issues ongoing

Why do you assume we've won ? It could be that our lawyers have advised the club our legal action is not going to succeed and it's better to drop the proceedings rather than carry on with a claim we've no realistic chance of winning.

 

[Coatigan]

No chance and anyway could only be a carve out if in the rules. Not in the PL's unilateral gift to change the rules in that way

Why would they even need to, after a statement in which the club accept the current rules are lawful and binding?

 

[slbsn]

For what it is worth as the original APT was only a narrow win, this one is also only a further positive "top up". Nothing too significant. Still think City were just toying with Masters in APT2 anyway. Never really had a practical solution to historic shareholder loans and APT1 confirmed that APT as a concept was lawful albeit it didn't like the implementation in the drafting.

 

[bluemanchester]

Post in thread 'PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules'
https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/...aches-of-financial-rules.358514/post-18588444

I'm with you TG

 

[oldius]

It will be very interesting to see what now transpires but I feel that it won't be long now before we hear the other verdict.
Any acceptance of the current rules does not stop other clubs from challenging them.

 

[slbsn]

Why would they even need to, after a statement in which the club accept the current rules are lawful and binding?

Because all the statement says is City accept the current rules are lawful and binding. It doesn't say what the PL will do or what the PL has agreed.

 

[Citizen Green]

Just hope Sheikh Mansour still has that Mr. Mansour’s number at Etihad so we can get that £100m a year uplift ratified.

 

[alib]

leaves more questions than answers but i guess we have to trust that our owners and their lawyers know what they are doing!

 

[Coatigan]

FFS!

I was just going to post this.

Ah, f*ck, I still will. :-)



Over to the OS!

That's just my honest reading of it mate.

I could be wrong. It is a short statement with no further comment. While the statement makes sense to me, the logic of it being any kind of a win, does not. Not based on the (3rd) challenge itself or the previous confidence behind it.