Search results

Just not true. Here is what I actually said and I stand by every word of it. And just checking, have you read the 175 pages?

What did I call wrong?

I'd say no. But other views are available.

This is saying one relatively minor detail of the rules is unlawful. It is important but not a major problem for the PL. This is not City's major win. The major win is ripping up the 2024 amendments. The major loss is probably on the matter of the test of transactions being before approval...

All a bit weird - I've been on here for 20 years, on Twitter for 15, writing on these topics for maybe 10 years, podcasts for 10? and watching City since 1982. So I do "it", in a lot of places. And I try and be objective. You do understand that the club are not trying to be objective don't you...

Think it is pretty clear I don't respond to every negative attack. So not sure this negative attack is justified either. But perhaps that is the spotlight talking.

That isn't what the judgment says though.

I have read it. Have you? They have successfully defended many points. They will consider that a significant win.

I have answered above

For anyone that wants to review what I actually said

I really don't agree with that. Sorry

On that measure, the PL can and do also claim a win

I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.

Have you read all of the judgment. Be honest. The end result was pretty much as I expected - main principles upheld and some meaningful but not necessarily decisive wins. Like it or not that is my objective view. You don’t need to agree but it is based on reading what was said not simply my...

Parties agreed it was too important not to publish

Yes within pricing... 281. We consider that we should examine together the three changes made to the pricing determination, namely the substitution of “would” for “could” together with the addition of the term “normal market conditions”, the removal of the adverb“evidently” qualifying the FMV...

Oh. Given 19/20 agreed to loans being excluded I doubt they worried too much about a challenge

They will have to. No real option

Very rare for any club to repay one of these owner loans. Liverpool did but think that was interest bearing. Interest free loans are almost always quasi equity in football. And of course, dividends can be paid if there is excess cash

Seems from the judgment that advice was shared.