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

[TCM]

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.

"Alice, Alice, who the fuck is Alice?"

You mean Dorothy numb nuts.

 

[1894southstander]

 

[Wretched Vengeance]

 

[halfcenturyup]

They will have to. No real option

They will have to have new votes continually weakening APT and / or PSR until a vote does pass. Finally, if no vote passes, Masters will have to resign.

The tyranny of the minority. Let's see how strong this "coalition" of seven clubs actually is.

In practice, though, they won't be proposing a vote unless they have the pledges for it to be successful, probably with a little horse trading. But they have to do something, and quick, obviously.

 

[Wretched Vengeance]

Repulsive, no good ****.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You have to ask why, and whether the PL made a full disclosure of the background, and the legal advice, to its members before the vote? Or did a little cabal keep that to themselves?

I was a little surprised that the award mentions the various committees involved in the preparation of rules, including APT, but doesn't say which clubs' legal representatives are involved at what stage, unless in the final APT committee when it was mentioned that City and Newcastle were involved.

It's not that the clubs were redacted, they just weren't named. You would think in a case about discrimination, that information would be relevant. A little less than completely transparent.

 

[VOOMER]

Repulsive, no good ****.

View attachment 134324

He looks like Gollum, if Gollums head was pumped full of cow shit

 

[halfcenturyup]

@slbsn If you are still here, what happened to the 2024 change in respect of burden of proof? It was mentioned in the award, but then the panel only concluded on "pricing" issues (could for would, normal market conditions and removal of evidently - all found for City) and timing issues (found for the PL), but unless I missed it, there was no conclusion on burden of proof?

Like I say, I may have missed it - I am getting old. I would have thought that would be caught up in the "increased likelihood of false positive" narrative applied to the pricing issues but I couldn't see a conclusion on that either way.

 

[Keeper!]

Repulsive, no good ****.

View attachment 134324

And a FOC to go with it.

 

[Keeper!]

He purports to be a blue but I have never seen him stick up for us once pal. He is certainly a finance expert of that I have no doubt

He gives a fair balance to our case, what more do you want him to do?

People moan about bias, you can't have it both ways.