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

[ShedDweller]

Is it not that loans can be repaid, equity can’t be withdrawn?

Its both... although equity can be sold... if its worth anything...

 

[BobKowalski]

He has to resign surely? You can’t make this much of a bollocks of things and still show up.

Given Masters has acted in bad faith and abused his position towards two member clubs I don’t see how either City or Newcastle can have faith in his continued stewardship.

And if Masters has acted in bad faith in this matter, then this reflects on the 115 case and our refusal to cooperate. How can City cooperate with an organisation and CEO that is prejudiced and ‘abusing its dominant position’?

Going forward, City’s successful challenge to arbitrary and illegal rules means any future rulings will need to have a higher threshold in terms of fairness and applicability. No longer is it enough to draft rulings at the whim and behest of a few clubs to protect their position.

That other clubs have lost their ‘shareholder funding’ loophole as a consequence of their and Masters overreach on APT’s is especially sweet.

 

[dublinblue12]

This is just giving us a little sample of how immense the piss boiling is going to be when found not guilty next spring, it's going to be glorious

 

[VOOMER]

They have sat on this decision for 14 days.

 

[bridgeno1]

Nice one, exactly right. But why does your Club go out of its way to piss off our Club?

Whether they do or not I don't know. But there's a difference between a club's hierarchy and its fans. I've been getting dogs abuse on here (it's fine I'm thick skinned and I'm on a Man City forum after all so it's a case of Alice isn't in Kansas any more) but I'm not a representative of Arsenal Football Club I'm just a fan and have been my whole life so I think it would be cool if people could make that distinction. Making things personal isn't cool.

 

[Canter]

Where I understand City might have the biggest issues are some allegations around City execs misrepresenting owner funding as sponsorship income. Anyway I'm far from an expert on this and it's only based on some things I've heard which are just as likely to be bollocks as not so please don't take this as my personal opinion, only a response to what I've heard are possibly the toughest of the 115 charges for City to overcome.

The sooner you get to acceptance, the better your life will become.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Surely after the Leicester farce and now this, an independent regulator needs to be brought in to oversee the PL sooner rather than later? It's becoming obvious why the PL were not keen on the idea.

The PL us not fit for purpose, get rid.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Even Stefan got this one very wrong

I take everything he says with a pinch of salt...A knowledgable man for sure but I believe nothing he says

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Because all of United’s debt is commercial, much of it via the initial leveraged purchase, but more still from subsequent loan restructuring and cash injections. The Glazers have not used shareholder loans to finance club operations, as that comes with a set of risks they most certainly would not wish to assume. I believe they have effectively made equity investments their public listing in the US, which as supported further leveraging of operations.

This isn’t a sign of good management, though. They’ve saddled United with significant debt servicing obligations and continually extract value from the club whenever possible.

They must be the only ones to do get value from the cunts, comical value apart from other supporters .

The gift that keeps giving.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

I’ve been looking on RAWK. They are sick that the entire media are being paid by us