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

TedofChume said:
It wasn't a penalty. Under the rules that season the referees were instructed to determine that if the ball touched the sleeve (on a short sleeved shirt), it was not handball. The ball struck his sleeve so that's that!

The thing is you can never pick on one incident. There are 38 matches for each team and you can easily pick another incident to argue City should have won the league by a bigger margin.

When people come up with that sort of argument it's a psychological comfort blanket to deal with reality. Cock sucking cunts.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for ya mate ;)
 
blue b4 the moon said:
It may/may not have been handball. It was the sort of subjective decision that happens week in week out and in another game wouldn't even get a mention.

However, there's the small matter of the Everton lad being offside in the build up which was where the game restated from with a free kick to us.
Click to expand...
Strangely the offside never gets mentioned
 
slbsn said:
City didn't say 23371 officially at least. Don't know what Chinese company you mean but City never mentioned one in the APT hearing. Etihad sponsorship exceed Emirates by a lot. The test is not domicile - it is whether they are Associated. In fairness, Infinite Athlete was an APT for Chelsea and had to have FMV approval too.

And there is no blocking. If the deal is rejected, the party is told what level would be accepted as FMV (as with First AD Bank).
Click to expand...
The hotel sponsorship as I understand it was by the tenants who are a Chinese co, so why the PL looked at it at all baffled me.
 
Stoned Rose said:
I know only a small sample but I was in Jamaica last month and literally everyone is a city fan. Every worker in the hotel was and on every trip we did there were city shirts everywhere. Every taxi driver was. The geezers running the dolphin park were. You’d see some mad little random Rasta climb out of the bushes on some secluded roadside in an old school city top.

Irie.
Click to expand...
Raheem effect
 
TedofChume said:
It wasn't a penalty. Under the rules that season the referees were instructed to determine that if the ball touched the sleeve (on a short sleeved shirt), it was not handball. The ball struck his sleeve so that's that!

The thing is you can never pick on one incident. There are 38 matches for each team and you can easily pick another incident to argue City should have won the league by a bigger margin.

When people come up with that sort of argument it's a psychological comfort blanket to deal with reality. Thumb sucking babies.
Click to expand...
I was at the other end and thought it was a stonewall pen. Just like George Courtney could see Coton bringing down Beardsley and Rush from the halfway line
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Herbert is nothing more than a client journalist - essentially an extension of Liverpool’s marketing department, whose role very simply is not nor has ever been to apply balance or provide accuracy in his ‘reporting’, but to deliver copium to Liverpool’s fan base.

That’s literally his job.

It’s common practice in sports journalism.

I’m not sure why anyone gives his articles any more credibility than you would the Liverpool FC website, or the Echo.

Don’t get stressed about him - he’s just doing his job.
Click to expand...
Agreed - just like Chris Bascombe at the Telegraph who’s another ****.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Herbert is nothing more than a client journalist - essentially an extension of Liverpool’s marketing department, whose role very simply is not nor has ever been to apply balance or provide accuracy in his ‘reporting’, but to deliver copium to Liverpool’s fan base.

That’s literally his job.

It’s common practice in sports journalism.

I’m not sure why anyone gives his articles any more credibility than you would the Liverpool FC website, or the Echo.

Don’t get stressed about him - he’s just doing his job.
Click to expand...

What's hilarious is he's a Wrexham fan or Hollywood FC as they're now known.
They've literally financially doped their way up the leagues.
Thats OK though as they're American movie stars with white skin.
Hypocritical ****.
 
Gingers Dad said:
Liverpool fans are convinced we only won the league when Everton didn't get a penalty, after Rodri got away with playing basketball at the Gladys Street end. Surprisingly Everton fans never mention it.
Click to expand...
And they came runners up because of players like Jota throwing themselves into goalkeepers and 'winning penalties'.
They cheated to be runners up
 
shemnel said:
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"
Click to expand...
There were two APT cases APT1 and APT2
City pretty much won APT1 which the judges declared a number of the rules as illegal including share owner loans not being included as in PSR, that is an interest payment not being accessed. There was some outstanding items including some clarifications that the parties asked the panel for, despite City objections the PL decided to amended the rules and put them to a vote which the clubs approved, some including City voted against or abstained. City warned the PL that they might return to law, which they did and a hearing was set for October. Now that they have reached an agreement this is cancelled
IMHO City have achieved their aim of getting the deals agreed in full and removed any restrictions for future deals that are deemed associated party The rest of the matters were probably just a means to an end so they are not bothered
 
Last edited:
CC1 said:
Yes just like Simon Stone is “employed” by BBC to report only on rags. Who do the BBC use (& the daily fail) to report solely on City I wonder???
Click to expand...

The Beeb have a Rag from Huddersfield to report (or stir up shit may be more accurate) on us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
mancboy said:
empirical evidence states that decisions not given for city are given for other clubs, thats not a conspiracy theory that is a statement of fact, if you want evidence of that you only have to look at this season, oscar bobbs foot stamped on by spurs player completely ignored and we play on, chelsea players foot stamped on by fulham player penalty given and even worse chelsea players foot stamped on by fulham player in completely natural act, goal disallowed for fulham.

I know it is de rigeur for people who support the refs to say there is no conspiracy theory and it all equals out in the end but the reality is that is just not the case and it is a statement of fact that certain teams are reffed differently than others and there is any number of incidents to prove that as shown above.
Click to expand...

One example doesn't make it a fact across the board.

I remember Arsenal fans crying because Kovacic wasn't sent off against them after a few poor tackles, and admittedly, we got a bit lucky there.

BTW, I'm not even suggesting that there isn't any conspiracy theory. I think we tend to get a few decisions in our favour when they don't matter, but not when they do. In terms of the overall effect it makes things seem 'equal' when they aren't. However, that's all more complex than trying to equate similar decisions with different outcomes.
 
Gordyola said:
There were two APT cases APT1 and APT2
City pretty much son APT1 which the judges delcared a number of the rules as illegal including share owner loads not be included as in PSR, that is an interest payment not being accessed. There was some outstanding items including some clarifications that the parties asked the panel for, despite City objections the PL decided to amended the rules and put them to a vote which the clubs approved, some including City voted against or abstained City warned the PL that they might return to law which they did and a hearing was set for October now that they have reached an agreement this is now cancelled
IMHO City have achieved their aim of getting the deals agreed in full and removed any restrictions for future deals that are deemed associated party the rest of the matters were probably just a means to an end so are bothered
Click to expand...
Agreed, as simple as that. The agreements will have been based on law and no need for a further hearing.
 
mattcity5 said:
One example doesn't make it a fact across the board.

I remember Arsenal fans crying because Kovacic wasn't sent off against them after a few poor tackles, and admittedly, we got a bit lucky there.

BTW, I'm not even suggesting that there isn't any conspiracy theory. I think we tend to get a few decisions in our favour when they don't matter, but not when they do. In terms of the overall effect it makes things seem 'equal' when they aren't. However, that's all more complex than trying to equate similar decisions with different outcomes.
Click to expand...
mate there isnt enough bandwith available on this forum to go through the amount of examples available to show that teams are reffed differently and im not even talking about subjective decisions im talking about exactly the same incidents reffed differently, you want another example how about two incidents that were reffed differently in the SAME game for the same team, rags against burnley first incident walker pulls down mount outside the box ref cant see it and of course blows for a pen, var get involved and say incident happened outside the box no pen, second incident burnley player pulls back diallo clearly outside the box ref sees it doesnt give it, var gets involved and the offence of sustained holding is invented to give the rags a pen which they desperately need to win. Either both are given or neither are and this is in the same game for the same team except one happened late in the game when a certain needed a decision to win, look at that and tell me teams arent reffed differently, we are three weeks into the season and ten examples i could give you already if we are being fair.
 
Gordyola said:
There were two APT cases APT1 and APT2
City pretty much won APT1 which the judges declared a number of the rules as illegal including share owner loans not being included as in PSR, that is an interest payment not being accessed. There was some outstanding items including some clarifications that the parties asked the panel for, despite City objections the PL decided to amended the rules and put them to a vote which the clubs approved, some including City voted against or abstained. City warned the PL that they might return to law, which they did and a hearing was set for October. Now that they have reached an agreement this is cancelled
IMHO City have achieved their aim of getting the deals agreed in full and removed any restrictions for future deals that are deemed associated party The rest of the matters were probably just a means to an end so they are not bothered
Click to expand...
Good summary.
 
BlueRockape said:
FOC Here
Why didn't we just have an interest free loan like the rest instead of all this hassle?
Click to expand...
Because good Muslims like our owner shouldn't borrow or lend money. By excluding Loans you are effectively discriminating against Muslim owners, funnily the press don't seem to mention this.
 
Cobwebcat said:
Click to expand...

Doesn't make any sense as the latest development doesnt change anything they voted in new rules which they were obviously in favor of those are now the rules Unless of course the PL executive knows more than what's in the public domain
More than likely shit stirring lies by the author
 
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