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

Coatigan said:
Then, if that is the case, the PL have clearly won.

Not just with this settlement, but everything from the first ruling.

Including their own statement version of the outome of the ruling, which many of us mocked.

Simply put, they were right (as was Stefan when he argies the same), and the club were wrong.
Click to expand...

We don't know who was right and who was wrong in a legal sense because the claim has been settled.

And we won't know if the Etihad deal gets approved as originally presented or for a reduced amount, so we won't know who "won" on that point either.

Whether a settlement was better for the PL or for the club depends purely on how you assess the situation. I don't assess it as you have.
 
Well the leadership of certain other premier league clubs certainly aren't taking this as a victory for the premier league!

Demanding answers when they know full well they'll have signed a non disclosure agreement as part of the settlement. Just goes to show the mindset of some of those we compete against, not used to not sitting on the big boy chair, are they?

BBC News - Clubs seek clarity over Man City 'settlement'
www.bbc.com

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Coatigan said:
No I don't see it that clean. If the club weren't so publicly confident with their third challenge, maybe. But they were adamant the rules were still unlawful, and that they would prove that to be the case. It is a fairly big departure to then a month beofre the hearing accept the rules are valid and binding.

Was there a trade off? Most likely, but what that is, could be anything, from controling the statement to agreeing how a deal is assessed.

The other thing it then leaves unanswered is what happens with the costs to both parties. The second ruling opened the likelihood of the PL having to cover our costs. The settlement, if we accept they were right to begin with, probably closes that, and this was likely covered in the settlement agreement.
Click to expand...
Fwiw Stefan believed that our costs would be picked up by the PL for APT 2. He thought the settlement was predicated on City getting something significant (Assertions around the Etihad renewal, changes to rules to be tabled soon, costs). If they didn't, why settle? `They had a lot less to lose than the PL.
 
One senior executive at a Premier League club, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "It's hard to say anything because we have no idea of the details of the settlement or any implications from it."

Amazing how the BBC can turn on their quote tap and get someone so high up at clubs to pass comments to them isnt it.
 
Coatigan said:
Then, if that is the case, the PL have clearly won.

Not just with this settlement, but everything from the first ruling.

Including their own statement version of the outome of the ruling, which many of us mocked.

Simply put, they were right (as was Stefan when he argies the same), and the club were wrong.
Click to expand...

What on earth are you talking about? haha

City likely would have won their new legal challenge (imo) but the PL basically tapped out to City before the match and said 'Ok, we'll give you what you want'.

City will now have exactly what they wanted before all legal challenges - their huge new sponsors put through the record books.

The PL get to keep their 'amended' rules, yes, but only at the expense of 'tapping' out to City.

It's more bad news for clubs like Newcastle, but we've strong armed ourselves into the position we wanted all along.
 
bluetonium said:
Well the leadership of certain other premier league clubs certainly aren't taking this as a victory for the premier league!

Demanding answers when they know full well they'll have signed a non disclosure agreement as part of the settlement. Just goes to show the mindset of some of those we compete against, not used to not sitting on the big boy chair, are they?

BBC News - Clubs seek clarity over Man City 'settlement'
www.bbc.com

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
Dippers demanding so they can leak it.
 
Coatigan said:
@HelloCity, extract from the Times article posted earlier also seems to back your timeline.
..
But that also backs the point that, if the club accepts the new rules it so openly challenged, those rules were ok to begin with, and the fix the PL mooted as a result of the first hearing was also ok, meaning their interpretation of the hearing was also ok.
Click to expand...

No, it just means that the quid offered as settlement to the club was worth more to the club than the quo they had to give up.
 
Coatigan said:
Then, if that is the case, the PL have clearly won.

Not just with this settlement, but everything from the first ruling.

Including their own statement version of the outome of the ruling, which many of us mocked.

Simply put, they were right (as was Stefan when he argies the same), and the club were wrong.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

We told them the rules were unlawful. They said they weren't. The tribunal agreed with us.

They tried a quick fix. We said "that doesn't work, all of the rules are unlawful." They said they weren't. The tribunal agreed with us.

For both those cases, the League will be paying a big chunk of our costs as part of the settlement announced yesterday. That figure will be tens of millions.

They may also be paying compensation for unlawfully blocking our deals with First Abu Dhabi Bank and Etihad, and for delaying the assessment of those deals in any event.

The most recent claim was (amongst other things) that you can't breathe new life into void rules by a few amendments any more than you can breathe new life into a dead parrot. We will probably never know whether that argument would have succeeded, but it was a runner.

By settling the claim now, we are not just quitting while we are ahead, we are quitting while we are well ahead.

Call that a win for the PL if you want to. I'd hate to see how you would describe a loss.
 
Chris in London said:
Seriously?

We told them the rules were unlawful. They said they weren't. The tribunal agreed with us.

They tried a quick fix. We said "that doesn't work, all of the rules are unlawful." They said they weren't. The tribunal agreed with us.

For both those cases, the League will be paying a big chunk of our costs as part of the settlement announced yesterday. That figure will be tens of millions.

They may also be paying compensation for unlawfully blocking our deals with First Abu Dhabi Bank and Etihad, and for delaying the assessment of those deals in any event.

The most recent claim was (amongst other things) that you can't breathe new life into void rules by a few amendments any more than you can breathe new life into a dead parrot. We will probably never know whether that argument would have succeeded, but it was a runner.

By settling the claim now, we are not just quitting while we are ahead, we are quitting while we are well ahead.

Call that a win for the PL if you want to. I'd hate to see how you would describe a loss.
Click to expand...

That depends on the timeline. In the timeline I was going with, yes.

In the timeline as it seems to be, I'm sorry but no, us settling to accept the rules are valid and binding, which the PL claimed, means they can go away claiming they were right all along.
 
Coatigan said:
That depends on the timeline. In the timeline I was going with, yes.

In the timeline as it seems to be, I'm sorry but no, us settling to accept the rules are valid and binding, which the PL claimed, means they can go away claiming they were right all along.
Click to expand...

They really can't.

Read the second APT decision announced in February this year. The rules were completely unlawful and invalid between November 2021 and at least November 2024.

What has not been resolved is whether the November 2024 changes to the rules fixed them. But at any point prior to that date, the rules were dead in the water.

That is not a PL win.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Are you arguing that City can't be the victims of biased refereeing because Liverpool and rag supporters (among others) believe that they are? So when you occupy your City season ticket seat does this mean you don't actually watch the game, or take any notice of the refereeing or are you just winding everybody up?
Click to expand...
No, I’m stating most fan bases believe refs are against them. Do they not?

Haha ok so you’re a conspiracy loon who thinks every ref is out to get city and stop our success. If thats the case they’ve failed miserably haven’t they. I walk away and think the ref has been shit. Usually because they are, you then walk by the opposition fans who tend to say the same. I think we get some for us and some against us. Nowhere near as bad as it was when pep first arrived.
 
bluetonium said:
Well the leadership of certain other premier league clubs certainly aren't taking this as a victory for the premier league!

Demanding answers when they know full well they'll have signed a non disclosure agreement as part of the settlement. Just goes to show the mindset of some of those we compete against, not used to not sitting on the big boy chair, are they?

BBC News - Clubs seek clarity over Man City 'settlement'
www.bbc.com

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
Banned Roan pumping out the cartel propaganda

"It does mean there is a likelihood Manchester City will be able to spend more money"

Can't have City spending like the dippers, rags , chavs and tarquins can we? BBC chief cockroach in full rattle.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
That depends on the timeline. In the timeline I was going with, yes.

In the timeline as it seems to be, I'm sorry but no, us settling to accept the rules are valid and binding, which the PL claimed, means they can go away claiming they were right all along.
Click to expand...
Are you now using a JCB after throwing the spade away ?
 
johnny crossan said:
Banned Roan pumping out the cartel propaganda

"It does mean there is a likelihood Manchester City will be able to spend more money"

Can't have City spending like the dippers, rags , chavs and tarquins can we?
Shameful bias.
Click to expand...
Fuck Roan, fuck Stone, fuck the BBC. They're hardly a bastion of morality and truthfulness are they. Just a bunch of paedophile hiding and protecting twats funded (by law) by us with clearly an agenda against the club and it's owners. Needs fucking dismantling entirely.
 
bluetonium said:
Well the leadership of certain other premier league clubs certainly aren't taking this as a victory for the premier league!

Demanding answers when they know full well they'll have signed a non disclosure agreement as part of the settlement. Just goes to show the mindset of some of those we compete against, not used to not sitting on the big boy chair, are they?

BBC News - Clubs seek clarity over Man City 'settlement'
www.bbc.com

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
Levy was obviously the ringleader and now he knows the outcome he's thrown his cards in.

Fuckin mardarse.
 
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