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

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...

We are dealing with Masters and the PL. ;-)
 
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...

That seems to be the wider opinion, yes.

I don't see the two adding up though.
 
I wish City had simply included in their statement that the Etihad sponsorship has now been confirmed as compliant and officially approved by the Premier League.

That addition smacks of a win.
 
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...
It depends. I don’t think the first paragraph is true. Nothing had changed to say City got their sponsorship deal through. Now it seems, if you believe City’s version has been leaked to the usual sources, that they have it through.

We could have continued challenging every rule the PL tried to pass…it was unworkable and costly. I don’t think the loans being declared unlawful was what we were actually after, in fact we have previously said we were not against them. We won some points on APT 1 and lost more but we only had to win one to go to APT 2. The same people that were going to rule on APT 2 ruled on APT 1. The PL stood a good chance of losing again so they agreed a settlement with City rather than City giving up.

That’s my take reading between the lines rather than the lines themselves.
 
jrb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't think the club would have kept fighting it of they came to the opinion the rules were lawful and it was a lost cause. That would be irresponsible, particularly with the ongoing 115 and where that is at.

Where does any official statement claim the Etihad deal baing passed is a part of this settlement?
 
The thing I don't like and may probably annoy others is the fact, supporters after years of defending the club against other fans, listening to biased pundits on radio and television and having to read aggresive articles in the press and social media, the club have decided to go along the route of 'no comment' leaving supporters in no mans land after years of defending the trenches. The powers that be are becoming so detached from the fan base, other than scripted media releases there is nothing that considers the anger the fans have had to endure from all angles over the last few years. If we 'win' the 115 I hope they don't do the same.
 
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...
I don't think it has been well explained - not really what has happened.
 
Cobwebcat said:
It depends. I don’t think the first paragraph is true. Nothing had changed to say City got their sponsorship deal through. Now it seems, if you believe City’s version has been leaked to the usual sources, that they have it through.

We could have continued challenging every rule the PL tried to pass…it was unworkable and costly. I don’t think the loans being declared unlawful was what we were actually after, in fact we have previously said we were not against them. We won some points on APT 1 and lost more but we only had to win one to go to APT 2. The same people that were going to rule on APT 2 ruled on APT 1. The PL stood a good chance of losing again so they agreed a settlement with City rather than City giving up.

That’s my take reading between the lines rather than the lines themselves.
Click to expand...

'The PL stood a good chance of losing again so they agreed a settlement with City rather than City giving up.'

They agreed a settlement in which we publicly fully accept their position?
 
The comments on BBC Football and under the Daily Mail article are hilarious.
 
I don’t know if it’s good or bad news. The cartel followers are bleating so it’s probably good news.

What I do know is the continued lack of communication from the club to us supporters grates.

I almost think that if god forbid we lose the main witch hunt we will just get a couple of sentences in a club tweet.
 
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