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

bridgeno1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet more misinformation, it was Dorothy not Alice

Yesterday was more how do you like them apples than little red rides the hood

AA5B390A-D67E-4A74-8390-3F1DBF99266E.jpeg
 
Keeper! said:
The only loss I expect us to have to take is non cooperation, I would be utterly shocked if we were found guilty of anything other than that.

And after some of yesterday's email "revelations" I could see the panel understanding why we did not want to cooperate.
Click to expand...

I think we’ll vociferously defend the allegations that we did not cooperate & I think we should win. My only fear is arbitration seems to try & give both sides a small win.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That was my first thought reading the award. They have been applying rules that didn't comply with competition law in respect of shareholder loans since 2021. So, if there is a club that has suffered a loss through the application of these illegal rules, then surely that club has a right to compensation in the same way City does for any losses incurred as a result of their application to them. Maybe Arsenal would have breached PSR, or Brighton, maybe they should have been deducted points and just maybe the final table positions would have changed and distributions have been different?

You can't just wave a magic wand and say it's all OK from now on, surely? There must be some consequences to applying illegal rules.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to get some compo, knowing it would come out of the rags,dippers and arse funding.
 
Take the accounts of all PL clubs back to when FFP, PSR & ATP were introduced.

Apply to same scrutiny to them as has been applied to City over the same period and include the impact/benefit of shareholder loans for the relevant period.

Not sure how penalties should/could be applied ( ideas please) because multiple clubs will fail the rules.

Set the record straight....

"Once and for all" !!
 
halfcenturyup said:
That was my first thought reading the award. They have been applying rules that didn't comply with competition law in respect of shareholder loans since 2021. So, if there is a club that has suffered a loss through the application of these illegal rules, then surely that club has a right to compensation in the same way City does for any losses incurred as a result of their application to them. Maybe Arsenal would have breached PSR, or Brighton, maybe they should have been deducted points and just maybe the final table positions would have changed and distributions have been different?

You can't just wave a magic wand and say it's all OK from now on, surely? There must be some consequences to applying illegal rules.
Click to expand...

Once again this points to the lack of integrity and professionalism at the PL. it’s okay to sweep somethings under the carpet but not others… it just depends who it is.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes within pricing...

281. We consider that we should examine together the three changes made to the pricing determination, namely the substitution of “would” for “could” together with the addition of the term “normal market conditions”, the removal of the adverb“evidently” qualifying the FMV, and the reversal of the burden of proof from the PL to the club to show that a transaction is at FMV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.