City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[Winchester]

Just posted similar comment. It was just gob smackingly unbelievable

Yeah I just saw it m8
BBC Fkn joke

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

What the point that the IC say that nominal interest will need to be calculated when owners have soft loans which almost certainly will either see those loans converted to equity which for all intents and purposes they are already equity or the fact that APT will probably in one form or another still be in place.
Of course 7 clubs could vote against the whole concept but I don’t think that will happen

How can an owner who owns lets say 100% of his club and has then loaned his club more money, convert those loans into further equity without it qualifying as a straight cash injection. This would not be allowed under PSR rules anyway? Or am I missing something?

 

[dadnlad]

just laughing at these two on back pages
when looked like city losing apt and bring football down then of course getting rid of them with 115 charges everything in garden rosey
now won one made PL look stupid and 115 looking more iffy as goes along
football now should only be decided on pitch ha ha ha

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The chickens are coming home to roost - turns out the BBC goto "Premier League Can Claim Victory - top lawyer Simon Leaf" is a lifelong Arsenal fanboy & attack poodle pumping out cartel propaganda from the off.

x.com

x.com

take a look at this too

Gooner helps rags sign over-hyped shite on ridiculously exaggerated contract.



Keep your friends close and your enemies closer - Arsenal FC

 

[johnny crossan]

Why even watch that shite ? It's been full of bitterness towards us since we won the league in 2012, it's not going to change, put them on "ignore".

"If a way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst" - "De Profundis" by Thomas Hardy

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

All I'm seeing from the MSM is, City had a couple of minor wins. We failed on everything thing else because it's deemed lawful.

Just like CAS, the MSM still avoid the amount of times NO EVIDENCE was qouted. We will always be the ones that "got away with a techincallity."

The MSM - BBC especially - are ignoring: UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE. The report is quite clear about the way we were treated. We cannot win and will always be cheats.

The Times, The Mail, Mirror, SKY, even the Guardian are reporting a City win and have done all day. Even TalkSPORT did as well. The BBC are the outlier.

 

[Manc in London]

Given Bishops rant against us if anybody wants tickets to his tour....

I hope there is a fault on the night (eg stage lighting not working) and they have to cancel the 'performance'.

 

[cheekybids]

The thing I find hard to understand is things like if City go after the pl for compensation. Aren't City paying part of the compensation ? Or City are getting less money from the pl because the pl is paying legal and compensation bills to City or to fight City.

It’s like buying a raffle ticket

 

[manimanc]

SSN just now "PL will be very happy with the verdict"......good grief

Have they really said that?

What. The. Actual. Fuck.

In the space of 8 hours Ssn gave gone from us winning, to it being a draw and now the Premier League have got some kind of result.

It is absolutely shocking the standards of their reporting but they are in the same boat as the pro red cartel/ anti city hating pricks we have to deal with.

 

[lancs blue]

I'm running about 90 pages behind on this thread but having had a quick glance at the judgment doc these two paragraphs from p73 caught my eye, apologies if they've been mentioned already. Basically turned the PL's own argument for the APT amendments against them with reference to excluding shareholder loans. How can these clowns be seen as fit to run a multi-billion pound organisation?

As Counsel for the PL accepted in opening, if the ambit of the APT Rules were limited only to APTs from Gulf States, that would be discriminatory and hence an object restriction because, looking at the economic and legal context, although such a measure would still be an
anti-circumvention measure, it would be aimed only at Gulf States and therefore objectively it would be discriminatory. We can see no difference in principle between that situation and limiting the ambit of the APT Rules to excluding shareholder loans.

Nor is the fact that it is open to all clubs to have access to such a subsidy an answer. Even if it could be said that this meant there was no discrimination in a formalistic sense, a difference of treatment between shareholder loans and other APTs is, in our view, an obvious distortion of
competition as it permits one form of subsidy, namely a non-commercial loan, but not another, a non-commercial sponsorship agreement. Both are equally injurious to the objective of the PSR.