Search results

Imagine bothering with that post! Gratuitous

I am not surprised by NvW's post. It is broadly consistent with what I have heard. Neither party had the result as of recently and both were confident of prevailing.

Personally, I think the international weeks are more likely than normal weeks.

Yes I think everyone will have agreed a period for checking - 48 hours is a minimum for this I'd say as it is impossible to even read it once properly in less.

Nothing since I posted either way. I'd say a good chance the parties receive today or in the next 7 days (speculation not fact).

One wasn't an APT. The other wasn't approved because of the case (if it has been approved)

Yes I am sure City enjoyed inflicting some pain. But outside of City, City fans and the PL legal department, not many people care or even understand the case, what was won and what was not.

Perhaps because the rules in place today are broadly those in place before City won and actually substantially more restrictive than when City first launched the case in Jan 2024? Null and void was a good headline but always irrelevant where a new set of replacement rules was relatively simple...

Having got this far, international week is now the earliest realistic release as opposed to this week (opinion rather than fact). Parties still don't have the decision as of the end of last week (fact) but obviously not impossible they receive it this PM (opinion).

We know the parties get the decision first for minor checks and to prepare comms. The only question is how long they have to digest before wider release (if each part is to be released ie liability first etc). I'd expect the liability decision to be released but probably with no white smoke...

With respect the idea that all opinions on such a complex matter are equal is obviously wrong. Likewise, it depends on who someone speaks to. For all I know someone on here is in Simon Cliff's office. Clearly their view is more accurate. But the idea it is all binary - know something as fact vs...

If this was remotely true (and it is impossible to see how it is), then it would be clear the PL brought a gun to a gunfight.

Quick reader. Impressive.

Thanks for the comments and feedback.

Yes. And the hotel deal was approved.

Pure speculation without having read the documents (or most of what I wrote above). Football and the rules will go on beyond 2035.

No. UEFA 2014 was a suggestion that MCFC failed to properly declare related parties and therefore that such agreements were subject to FMV and potential adjustment. APT is a case about whether a regulatory regime extending related parties to a new broader test and rule book was lawful. Of...

I think if you take my responses as a whole they are reasonable and polite. But everyone entitled to their own view.

Not really an opinion. The UEFA is nothing like the APT competition law case. Only someone who hadn't read the decision could conclude that.