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

chaddblue said:
When Miguel Delaney says its a significant win for City you can rest assured that it is definitely a significant win for City
Click to expand...
Spineless **** can’t bring himself to say it’s a significant win for City, but rather that it’s ‘said’ to be.

Strange, because the **** hasn’t previously been shy about expressing his views on the subject.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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 done other issues. And the PL can't rely 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 :)
Click to expand...

City settled with Liverpool for hacking our player database.

Which, in hindsight, was a mistake, as we all know.

City should have taken Liverpool to court, unless there was something City didn't want disclosed?

Just like the APT settlement with the PL, we'll never find out.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
The amended rules. Rules that were found to be unlawful after our APT1 challenge. Once they were amended we were ok with them but pushed on to get the shareholder loans backdated. Not hugely important to us so WE’VE ended the case, however they want to phrase it for the press.
 
Looks like Gundo was handling this for us. He moved to Turkey but has had delays getting his broadband installed so we have had to drop it. Arsenal now free to get interest free loans from Noddy Holder
 
Cobwebcat said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Etihad deal being valid, would always have been the case, because the rules that would have prevented it, were deemed unlawful.

The two things don't add up. We can't accept the rules are valid and binding, but those same rules, that we were prepared to so confidently challenge again, also somehow allow the etihad deal through via a closed doors settlement. That sounds a bit dodgy, does it not?
 
malg said:
It will be the new ones. Is it a win for both parties?
Click to expand...
I think we’re being kind to the PL - because at end of day, if we also win 115 then we’ve got everything we wanted. I’m sure we know what we’re doing. We still want the PL to exist but in a way that SUITS US.
I would say it’s a win for us
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
From what I can gather, we've accepted the the APT rules are lawful.

THEY have accepted our deals are within those rules, when previously they claimed they weren't.
 
Metal Biker said:
From what I can gather, we've accepted the the APT rules are lawful.

THEY have accepted our deals are within those rules, when previously they claimed they weren't.
Click to expand...
The AMENDED rules - rules that were ONLY amended because of our APT1 challenge- which we won & they had to be changed to suit us because they were unlawful
 
Burtonblue said:
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
Click to expand...

Have they though?

For once, I think the BBC have read this more accurately than the others. Or at least more factually.
 
Coatigan said:
The Etihad deal being valid, would always have been the case, because the rules that would have prevented it, were deemed unlawful.

The two things don't add up. We can't accept the rules are valid and binding, but those same rules, that we were prepared to so confidently challenge again, also somehow allow the etihad deal through via a closed doors settlement. That sounds a bit dodgy, does it not?
Click to expand...
Success in litigation is not measured by getting what your statement of case says you want, but rather meeting and advancing your strategic aims.
 
slbsn said:
They can't put anything in a settlement on this that gives certain clubs certain rules. The rules can only change with a vote. The concessions were probably over fees and perhaps a promise to propose certain amendments but also possible City got where they wanted to get to on Etihad anyway.
Click to expand...
Is an agreement on how the panel interpret the rules really a change of rules ?
Similarly, City’s deal with Puma demonstrated that the PL had been very niggardly in assessing FMV in our case. I think they effectively admitted to not casting the comparative net wide enough and denied us data about their benchmarks. City sources seem to be saying blocked deals will now be reassessed.
In any case, the way the rules are now rumoured to be interpreted will apply to all. I suppose the devil is in the detail which I think should be published.
 
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...

I honestly think that if the City weren't happy with the settlement with the PL, they would have continued fighting the PL.

It looks like City got what they wanted, the Etihad deal was cleared, and City then decided to accept the amended APT rules as they are now, which were voted for by the majority of the PL clubs last season. City can't keep on fighting the PL and the other PL clubs indefinitely.
 
gouldybob said:
Anyone take a screenshot?
Click to expand...
G0VerUAX0AAoSJS
 
CC1 said:
The amended rules. Rules that were found to be unlawful after our APT1 challenge. Once they were amended we were ok with them but pushed on to get the shareholder loans backdated. Not hugely important to us so WE’VE ended the case, however they want to phrase it for the press.
Click to expand...

All depends on the detail of the 3rd challenge. The club seemed fairly confident the rules remained unlawful. Perhaps only around the backdating of shareholder loans, perhaps on more than that.

If indeed it Was just on the loans, then
a) this claim that the settlement now allows the Etihad deal through can't make sense, and
b) it also can't be any kind of a win, just conceding that they were right to begin with and our so confident a challenge was just for a bit of a laugh.
 
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