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

TheGhost said:
The reports in the Times and Mail, which were released concurrently with the official press release, look like they have come verbatim from City. They are claiming our success. There isn’t a counter narrative (yet) from the Premier League which makes some of us think the PL are happy for that to be agreed position of both parties.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, thank you. I don’t read the tabloids so haven’t seen anything else reported yet. Still seems a very clandestine statement from the club. I’d like to think they would be happy to release details on any victory against the PL after the years of shit we have taken.
 
theres only one carlito said:
Ah ok, thank you. I don’t read the tabloids so haven’t seen anything else reported yet. Still seems a very clandestine statement from the club. I’d like to think they would be happy to release details on any victory against the PL after the years of shit we have taken.
Click to expand...
Take the victory, and, more importantly, take the money, rather than gloating.
 
Ysabel 123 said:
Our owners don't discuss money mate, they discuss projects!

That is the reason why not a single member of the media know anything about City anymore, until the Club wants them to know
Click to expand...
This ^^^^

Our owners move in the kind of circles where their actions speak for them.

Try it on, they’ll see you in court.
 
jimharri said:
Lots of knicker wetting on the caff......

City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing concluded | Awaiting outcome

Interesting read, could it all be about to unravel for them?
www.redcafe.net www.redcafe.net
Click to expand...
Always wonder why blues put links to other clubs forums who despise us.
Can't stomach the bile and ignorance on offer.
We get enough blue on blue violence here, nevermind the vitriolic red on blue.

And before your smarty pants answer, I know I don't have to click. FOMO.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
On the subject of 'What's the connection of all this to the bu115hit charges ?'

In monetary terms, the legitamcy of the Etihad sponsorship is around 90% of the whole shit show. Etisalat about 5% and Mancini and Image rights 5%. Fcuk non-coop charges, the only sanction allowable is a fine.

The worst APT scenario would have been the PL saying forget that Etihad renewal and we are not even going to waste our time with any FMV assessment because we have illegitimised it in the prosecution of the bu115hit. But the opposite has happened, the hugely upgraded renewal has been approved in its entirety. This must by implication mean 90% of 115
has failed. Given to this day we are also sponsored by Etisalat (rebranded e&), at the last home game it was screaming out from the pitch perimeter displays, we can be sure that sponsorship has not been illegitimised. So what's left ? a HMRC approved image rights scheme and Mancini, 2 payments of £1m quid in 2008 and 2009, years before the creation of FFP.

UEFA
CAS
Rui Pinto
Joe Lewis
Daniel Levy
APT1
APT2
.....
Richard Masters
Click to expand...

Nice list.

You forgot to add the FA and FIFA.

City saw those 2 off as well.
 
Just heard a Talksport presenter accuse City and Etihad of being in "kahoots"
Definition of kahoots is,secret or questionable dealings.
Maybe they will be getting a letter .
Broadcast was about 05:40 today in a back pages review.
 
No One Understands said:
Always wonder why blues put links to other clubs forums who despise us.
Can't stomach the bile and ignorance on offer.
We get enough blue on blue violence here, nevermind the vitriolic red on blue.

And before your smarty pants answer, I know I don't have to click. FOMO.
Click to expand...
100% correct. You don't have to click. And no; there'll be no "smarty pant" (haven't heard that expression in a long, long time) response. I will simply finish by saying that if it troubles you as much as it seems to do, report the issue. Enjoy the rest of your day.
 
John Wayne said:
I think you make some good points, but the key difference between 115 and APT is that the former strikes at the heart of our integrity. Any form of settlement carries with it the implication that we had behaved improperly. Unless we have actually behaved improperly (something which feels increasingly remote), then I cannot see the club settling on any points whereby we are alleged to have cheated.
Click to expand...
 
Both save face and both get what they want, we get the sposorship deals and the prem don't get challenged on the newer revised rules which they cannot afford to carry on fighting about in court.

Now we need to see how other clubs respond, do the red shirts cry like bitches and do those hamstrung recelntly try to use this to get sponsorships previously barred to them.
 
halfcenturyup said:
But by the same token, presumably it will be the City team briefing Lawton and Keegan. It's a little disingenuous to take the PL briefing as fact while dismissing the City briefings. I would also suggest the Roan briefing was a defensive response to the narrative developing that Etihad was cleared.

Anyway, we all know how to brief with the best possible interpretation even if, given the PL's previous history of talking complete bullshit in their briefings, personally I lean more to City's side of the story.

So what we are looking for is a situation where both briefings are true without being complete. What about this? Yes, City have to re-submit Etihad, but the PL have agreed to push it through or, at the very least, have agreed small amendments with City that will allow the PL to push it through.

Clearly, imho, City got out of APT2 what it wanted otherwise what was the incentive to settle rather than to proceed? As you have mentioned yourself many times, it was a no-risk, free hit for City.
Click to expand...
The underlying motive behind APT2 must have been to exert pressure on the Premier League to revise its decision concerning the AD deals, which the panel in APT1 determined had been reached in a procedurally unfair manner and therefore required to be overturned.
 
urban genie said:
Both save face and both get what they want, we get the sposorship deals and the prem don't get challenged on the newer revised rules which they cannot afford to carry on fighting about in court.

Now we need to see how other clubs respond, do the red shirts cry like bitches and do those hamstrung recelntly try to use this to get sponsorships previously barred to them.
Click to expand...

I disagree about both getting what they want. City wanted to be judged fairly & get their sponsorships approved. The premier league wanted to stop City having these sponsorships & went to extreme lengths to stop this. City kept the premier league in a headlock until Masters tapped out…..
 
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