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

Manc Born & Bred said:
'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

www.bbc.co.uk

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.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
here are some things that i think might well be true...


masters is a muppet puppet of the cartel.

there is zero chance he settled this without having quiet words about it with the cartel before agreeing to our demands to drop it.

the clubs who roan claims are saying that they have no idea what the settlement amounts to are not in the cartel.

the cartel clubs knew in advance this was going to happen and just spunked transfer money like there's no tomorrow.



here are some things i'd like to be true but might well not be...

the emails and whatsapps are very incriminating.
we used them as a bargaining tool to get most of what we wanted without it having to go down the legal route as long as we agreed to keep schtum that we'd basically roasted them over a barrel.

levy was pushed.

masters will follow once we get a full victory in the 115 case.



here is something that i think might be true but i really don't want it to be...

the cartel have quietly said to us,
look okay okay, you win, please stop it with the fucking lawyers. you're now in the cartel, close the door behind you.
 
Coatigan said:
Oh, but we do! Because part of the settlement means City publicly accept the rules as valid and binding. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, the PL were right.
Click to expand...
However the Tribunal disagreed with this take, with their "unlawful" comments previously? Can the PL most importantly (and City/other clubs for that matter), just ignore this ruling?
 
Chris in London said:
What City say has no legal value other than as between City and the league.

Newcastle haven’t accepted the rules are valid. Neither have Villa. If either of them take the same points the PL are in just as much trouble as they were.

Some win.

You really do need to read the February decision, it will cure you
Click to expand...

Re the February decision, read back what I argues at the time. Even with Stefan, that it categorically was a win for City.

In accepting the PL rules though, we accept they were right, so it becomes meaningless.

Agree if others challenge it, puts the PL back where they were before we settled. But doubt anyone will.
 
Coatigan said:
Oh, but we do! Because part of the settlement means City publicly accept the rules as valid and binding. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, the PL were right.
Click to expand...

Again no, it doesn't mean that. City accepting the November 2024 rules as valid and binding means nothing to any other club who could take the issue up with the PL in arbitration. Then we would find out who was "right".

It's a strange statement anyway. If Newcastle take up this case and are successful, the rules won't be valid and binding on City whatever the PL says. It should say something like "City withdraw their challenge of the November 2024 rules and will not challenge their legality in the future".

Basically, it's meaningless guff for purposes of perception. Something in which the club doesn't get involved.
 
Coatigan said:
The second bit is not true, in the timeline others claim (whichseems to be right btw). The tribunal didn agree the fix was unlawful. Hence our subsequent challenge.

Moot though, as by accepting the tukes were valid, we accept the fix was valid too. Which is what the PL claimed.

How is that in any way difficult to understand?

It is simple, they claimed the rules as they were could be tweaked to be made lawful. We argued otherwise, but by now accepting them, they cpme away applearing to have been right.
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to understand because it’s bullshit. The second decision confirmed the rules were unlawful from the outset. The question that is unanswered is whether the November 2024 fixes made the rules lawful from that point on. There is just no doubt at all the rules were unlawful before that.

Please read the February decision.
 
Coatigan said:
The second bit is not true, in the timeline others claim (whichseems to be right btw). The tribunal didn agree the fix was unlawful. Hence our subsequent challenge.

Moot though, as by accepting the tukes were valid, we accept the fix was valid too. Which is what the PL claimed.

How is that in any way difficult to understand?

It is simple, they claimed the rules as they were could be tweaked to be made lawful. We argued otherwise, but by now accepting them, they cpme away applearing to have been right.
Click to expand...

I doubt that those in charge at City could give a flying fuck about how the decision is perceived by anybody or everybody, provided that they have managed to get the outcome they were seeking for the benefit of the club.

How the PL or their friendly media choose to "dress up the terms of the settlement" as a way of covering their backs", simply avoids them admitting that they fucked up once again, and have been forced to climb down.
 
So, just so I know.

Can we now get a renegotiated sponsorship deals with Etihad or will it still be under the same constraints and regardless of what Etihad offer, the PL can just say 'nope, that's too much'.

I don't give a fuck about interest free loans or who 'won' the case, what I care about is whether we can afford Rodrygo or Vinicius Junior as our right back in January.
 
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...
As ever there is nuance. Undeniably City gained some meaningful wins from APT1 and, in all likelihood, APT2. The scale of the victory depends on how important you consider the change of "would" back to "could" and the burden being on the PL to establish that a given deal was evidently not at FMV. Those matters are not nothing but nor are they headline making a year down the line. It is why I suggested it was a narrow win/score draw at the time. The PL come out with APT conceptually broadly "endorsed" but with a set of rules City are generally ok with.
 
hertsblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even when the quote is a meaningless load of old bollocks!

I love the fact that these malicious cunts running the cartel have been left incandescent with rage as a result of this - just imaging their reaction when the 115 verdict is in!
 
Manc Born & Bred said:
'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

www.bbc.co.uk

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.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
They should know they only have to ask the main corrupt broadsheets.or Harris!!!
 
Coatigan said:
Oh, but we do! Because part of the settlement means City publicly accept the rules as valid and binding. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, the PL were right.
Click to expand...
But they had the original rules thrown out & probably the new ones don’t affect us any more. Also, shareholder loans now have to attract interest.
We don’t need to fight anymore re APT
 
slbsn said:
As ever there is nuance. Undeniably City gained some meaningful wins from APT1 and, in all likelihood, APT2. The scale of the victory depends on how important you consider the change of "would" back to "could" and the burden being on the PL to establish that a given deal was evidently not at FMV. Those matters are not nothing but nor are they headline making a year down the line. It is why I suggested it was a narrow win/score draw at the time. The PL come out with APT conceptually broadly "endorsed" but with a set of rules City are generally ok with.
Click to expand...
City weren't ever completely against any form of APT though. Just the "unlawful/unfair" aspects...
 
Saddleworth2 said:
If your take is still that we have come out of this poorly then I'm sorry mate, I cannot agree with that. I wouldn't argue with your last two sentences though. The PL have saved some face as they haven't lost APT2. For the Club, they got enough that they deemed it more attractive to settle than take the legal risks of fighting on. As usual, its we the fans that invest in these battles on behalf of the club that are left hanging..... :-)

I hope to hell the judgement of the other stuff is communicated soon and we can get back to being purely football fans rather than understanding the minutiae of football finance and legal battles.
Click to expand...

To be clear, at no point do I argue we have come out of this poorly. At no point.

My argument is, that based on that statement, nobody can possibly know.

It is framed in such a way, that validates the PL stance. And says literally no more than that. Who gained what, whether we folded or the PL sold their soul to us, that's all conjecture, but nothing at all to back that we have 'won'.

The statement is a public admission the PL were right, there is no ifs or buts about that however.
 
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