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

Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you have to look a little outside the main points. I think Stefan’s retweet of his earlier statements is probably near the truth. Plus, if City have had the Etihad deal waived through, as some sources are reporting, that’s a big win for us.

Domalino’s post also made an interesting point too. No point in fighting when you have achieved your objectives. City were never really arsed about loans.

The PL couldn’t be seen to lose APT2.

I would stop short of saying this has anything to do with 115.
 
Last edited:
Well on track then. All under control.

A couple of thoughts:

Talk of a settlement between the parties as if it's neutral is a bit far-fetched. The defendant has rushed into a settlement a few weeks before the hearing because it didn't want to lose again. Club was in a strong position.

The clearest objective of all this was for the club to get the Etihad deal through. It has. Big win. I suppose it's possible that the club has agreed to some changes in the Etihad deal, the annual increase % perhaps, but we will never know.

I very much doubt the club cared enough about the new APT rules to go the whole hog if it didn't have to and if it could get clarity on Etihad and maybe some other issues. And the PL can't really try again on the next renewal in view of their acceptance this time.

Would the club settle on this if they were in trouble on the 115? Not in my world. Clearest sign yet, apart from the clear impossibility of providing properly cogent evidence of course, that the club will be just fine. Just maybe, there could be a link between this settlement and the 115 case which will speed up that judgment too. Yes I know it's my favourite conspiracy but I can't drop it now :)
 
Last edited:
Ric said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure how that can be the case. And either way, I am basing my opinion on the statement alone, rather than journalists' commentary or opinion. The statement makes no such claim. We can presume it, but all it says is that we accept the PL rules to be lawful and binding. That's all.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's like you owing me money, refusing to pay me back, and then paying me back with interest, and we both agree that I will never lend you money again. :-)
 
Blue and true said:
How is Levy's sacking relevant to the charges? I don't mean that to sound aggressive or accusatory, I just don't see the relevance.
Click to expand...
Don’t know. Just strange because he has always been so anti- City & I do wonder if what he has intimated has been discussed
 
Of course I’m happy if the club can now progress these deals but denying ourselves the opportunity to call out Arsenal etc for shareholder loans is annoying.

The club aren’t interested in fan squabbles, its just business, but our announced silence on this just allows our haters to come out with all the usual crap without response.
 
hertsblue said:
Disappointed the club agreed not to maje any further comment on this. The PL have dragged our name through mud and now it seems we have won this case v them, we should be calling out their illegal rules
Click to expand...
You are not wrong, I feel the same way. But, our owners are from a very different culture. They are not interested in the PR, or triumphing the battles along the way, they want to win the war. And we are winning it.
 
Keith Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are sock drawers classed as associated parties?
Asking for a friend ; )
 
mike1923 said:
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)
Click to expand...

This coming from a red shirt fan who's septic club sat down with the cunts from Trafford to give us project big “Red” picture
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
BBC dressing it up as a win for the PL…but it really isn’t. They’ve conceded their stance on Etihad deal was unlawful. All we have conceded is accept the amended rules.
Beeb only pick and choose to report what suits them
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so in theory, nothing needs done.
 
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