Search results

Those holiday homes in Tuscany don’t pay for themselves, you know

we had a government selling us snake oil for years...

City’s legal team seen smiling

Not a great effort. You need to lift your game

The objections to the elevator were wrong on a number of levels

I'd add to that that the timeline seems to suggest that a number of factors were in play. As you say, it can't be the rejection of the Etihad deal because the arbitration was launched before that happened. That said, City could probably see which way the wind was blowing by that stage. However...

no

yes, i meant apt rather than rpt.

Perhaps it's easier to break it down into what I know and what I think. Here's what I know: (a) the Premier League has no unilateral power to change the rules without giving due notice of any proposed rule change and receiving the support of a 2/3 of the clubs present and voting. So a behind...

On this specific point, No is the answer. The only deals the PL has the power to assess and re-value if necessary are the deals between a club and an associated party. (Slight tangent, the associated party rules were substantially introduced because the rules the PL initially adopted didn't...

It’s not a rule change, the PL has no power to unilaterally change the rules. Whatever they have conceded, it has to be something within their gift. Remember, this hearing was basically a free hit for City. The PL have to have offered City something worth having or City wouldn’t have settled.

The most interesting thing about the “assurance” is the fact that someone said it at all. Unless Mike Keegan simply made it up, whoever was speaking to him at City said that. We both know that whatever preceded that, it wasn’t an acknowledgment from the Premier League that City had been singled...

yes

no need. If you were saying then what you are saying now you were wrong then.

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...

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...

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...

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...

The only "drop hands" I meant to indicate is in relation to the specific challenge to the November 24 amendments and the Etihad deal, which arguably was no longer in issue in any event. Plainly there are wider issues that will have been included within the settlement, since the agreement is...

None of them. The Etihad deal was assessed under the original rules. Those rules remain more or less in force save for the shareholder loans issue. There were multiple serious problems with the 2024 amendments which have largely fallen by the wayside but as I say that didn’t impact the Etihad...