Search results

Who?

I know, it was a broader point. Our discussion has been all good, and has moved my stance somewhat too.

Not at all. We accepted they keep our wallet.

I do get what you are saying. However in having accepted the rules they so openly challenged, they have inevitabley changed their stance. Perhaps arguably not on the lawfulness itself, but on where the club stood on that. I guess if they thought all along the new rules were lawful but were...

Yeah I broadly bracketed that within 'costs'. But get they aren't the same thing. Fair that he PL stood more to lose. But with the settlement and that statement, they naturally also then 'win' more.

Sure but we would have got those three items following APT1 so there would ahve been no need to challege them again. And, we would have then also had pretty clear perception on our side, following that second verdict! Surely you can see that my points aren't negative or anti-city as made out...

That's where I was going with it. The speculation on 'who gained what' unravels pretty quickly! Can't be the Etihad or significant deals, think that is fair to say, that wouldn't work. It is not a change to the rules, that's not in the PL's power. A soft commitment to put amendments forward...

Had we not so aggressively challenged them a second time, I would have said yes. Most likely, imo we still are, because 3 key items did after all get changed. Maybe the three City wanted, maybe they even just wanted the one changed, anything else was a bonus. Who knows. But the fact remains...

Let's speculate that commitment was part of their trade-off, and the PL table such amendments agreed in the settlement. But the clubs vote against them and the rules stay as they are. Where does that leave City, having challenged the rules, then publicly accepted them without the changes...

Yes that is my point. And they certainly can't claim to, from that statement. Which everyone seems to be doing.

That doesn't stack. The same rules that block such deals can't be both claimed unlawful and accepted as lawful at the same time. In the same sense that the deal can't suddenly be passed in return for accepting the rules that would stop the deal being passed.

I have always accepted that, as an unknown likelyhood. Still unknown though, and pretty much certainly unofficial seemingly.

Annoyingly, I slightly saw it but disagreed overall at the time, but now I see it a lot more. Worth reminding (others more than you) I argued it with you then, and I particularly reinforced that when the second ruling came out. But now with this statement, have to admit, it does well appear that...

This.

But it IS also true that most people seem to be more concerned with the perception, than the outcome. Which is clearly the opposite with the club, fwiw.

Again, this is a point I tried to make yesterday. The outcome of the two rulings re APT1, should have meant the Etihad deal is fair game with or without a settlement. It doesn't add up that the PL could agree to wave through the etihad deal in return for the club accepting the rules that...

That was the point I kept making yesterday. Nothing has changed, other than City accepting the rules they previously challenged. Everything else is just imagination. Maybe well palced, maybe misplaced, but still just pure speculation.

I get that, but what's the reputational damage if APT1 went against City. Nothing really, they would have been seen as the club that challenged the rules, but ultimately failed in proving them unlawful. They wouldn't have lost anything, as the rules were already in place anyway. They would...

That was not a statement, not by the club nor the PL. That is something a journalist said, without attributing it to anyone. I am not naive, and sure, he got it from somewhere, likely even someone at the club. And yes, it is very telling. But you/others are attributing the same weight to it...

We can not change the basic fact that City challenged the new rules again, and were adamant and confident they were still unlawful. That can not be re-written now. It's not like they claimed, hey good effort PL, the rules are almost there but we'll have another free hit go at changing them...