Attwell and Oliver (on VAR) cheating in the derby by allowing Rashford's blatant offside makes it hard to believe it's not true.
Perhaps you were too busy celebrating the goal to notice at the time?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Perhaps you were too busy celebrating the goal to notice at the time?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
They usually appear in a different order in my experience…Maybe its like when he wanks on a stranger's car window, seems a good idea in the moment, but swiftly followed by embarrassment, regret and self-loathing.
City Raider
Well-Known Member
If this process has been anything like the process for Masters job, the red shirts will have been kept in the loop every step of the way and agreed with the outcome.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.
Well, the PL do get to keep their rules, so that is something they wanted..."As part of the settlement, Manchester City accepts that the current APT Rules are valid and binding"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…..
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,843
Well, the PL do get to keep their rules, so that is something they wanted..."As part of the settlement, Manchester City accepts that the current APT Rules are valid and binding"
What use are their rules if they don’t hold up when challenged?
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
I wonder if it's a case of the PL allowing City to get what they can from previously disallowed sponsors then PL topping up with the difference in costs etc..We may also see a larger amount if this is group sponsorship instead of just MCFC. There are quite a few elements to consider as mentioned earlier and pulling such a justification together for a top 5 club in the worlds most popular sport would mean referring to the highest sponsorship to date for the individual elements and then applying a comfortable factor. I don’t think we’re pushing against an open door with Ethiad regarding the sums but it may be pretty close to one
City Raider
Well-Known Member
So interest free shareholder loans are still allowed?
well, that certainly remains to be seen. City got the Etihad Airways sponsorship through, which could mean further challenges from more clubs or it could mean an unfair original judgement from the PL. Or both. But the PL keeping their rules is still something they wanted to do (even if they dont work in the future).What use are their rules if they don’t hold up when challenged?
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,843
well, that certainly remains to be seen. City got the Etihad Airways sponsorship through, which could mean further challenges from more clubs or it could mean an unfair original judgement from the PL. Or both. But the PL keeping their rules is still something they wanted to do (even if they dont work in the future).
I think they’ve won the 2nd leg & gone out on aggregate ;)
They always were surely? But now notional interest will apply to PSR calculations. This change will not be backdated though. I think, but I might be completely wrong.So interest free shareholder loans are still allowed?
Keith Moon
Well-Known Member
City’s endgame was to get the Abu Dhabi deals over the FMV line and to ensure we wouldn’t face the same problem again. Mission completed: City won. The objective was never to abolish the APT rules in their entirety.
Yes - but only after City got them amended to suit usWell, the PL do get to keep their rules, so that is something they wanted..."As part of the settlement, Manchester City accepts that the current APT Rules are valid and binding"
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 20,379
- Team supported
- Manchester City
They always were surely? But now notional interest will apply to PSR calculations. This change will not be backdated though. I think, but I might be completely wrong.
How can these rules not be back dated.
How can dippers hacking not looked at as it was over 6yrs ago.
How can City be charged over alleged rule breaches over 10 years ago ?
Answer because its City
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Fair point, but, Bobby as far as we know hasn't even been interviewed/given a statement....just think about this £2m paid 15 years ago (perhaps) verses £50 COVID allowance to the rags.Just a theory
If the premier league have agreed that Etihad can raise there sponsorship and they can not wave it through FMV because of other clubs then the only option is to say it is not an APT and therefore doesn’t need FMV assessment. If they are doing that then how can they claim that Etihad deal wasn’t all paid properly in the 115 only a APT or related party would help a club out that much.
So are we left with Mancini and none cooperation ? Or nothing ?
As Monty Python would say...stop that it's very silly.
Think we'll get a mild rebuke for non-cooperation and it'll all get put to bed.
Last edited:
Are you a Man U or Liverpool fan? Own up.Haha. Football fan thinks referees are against their team shocker.
I think we should have a broad range of fans from other clubs on here.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Throw in the fa cup final last season too.Attwell and Oliver (on VAR) cheating in the derby by allowing Rashford's blatant offside makes it hard to believe it's not true.
Perhaps you were too busy celebrating the goal to notice at the time?
There have been numerous others as we all know but they can be hidden behind subjective/human error (yeah ok!!!!)
But the one you mention & last season's handball were just out & out cheating.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
My thoughts are that we will only accept complete exoneration and any other outcome would be appealed.Think we'll get a mild rebuke for non-cooperation and it'll all get out to bed.
Its irritating that none cooperation is even a charge or a thing, if the pl are asking for things that are well outside their remit and they know damn well they will never get them how on earth can you charge the club with not giving them what they were asking for, its the pl as usual thinking they are bigger than they actually are.My thoughts are that we will only accept complete exoneration.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
I'd fully agree with you but in the world of big business, if nothing sticks put something in the write up about us dragging our feet a bit (which we could very easily have done) to help justify the whole shit show from the PL especially as the other clubs are paying for the privilege of City winning.My thoughts are that we will only accept complete exoneration.