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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Have you and Lord Pannick ever been seen together at the same time?

Not as far as I’m aware, but I did speak to someone the other day who had, at a social event at one of the Inns of Court about a decade ago. Said he was quite funny.

Although not as funny as me, obviously.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Yep. You fuck with us and we’ll fuck you. ALL your debt is unfair, you wankers. How you gonna deal wiv that, bro, blud, innit? Ha fucking ha. I suggest you write a letter on that lovely letterhead you wave about in your attempts to fuck us. Karma, Karma, Karma.

Owners in glasshouses.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Not as far as I’m aware, but I did speak to someone the other day who had, at a social event at one of the Inns of Court about a decade ago. Said he was quite funny.

Although not as funny as me, obviously.

I was speculating that you and he were indeed the same person

 

[Ste68]

The overwhelming majority of clients follow the advice they are given, although sometimes reluctantly!

This all day long - although in my experience the advice is often describing the degree of risk involved in a course of action and not always definitive. The advice the PL got and the wording I think is clearer and to ignore it after we had indicated we would take action quite mad.

 

[Roachy]

Can I just check if my understanding of things is roughly correct?

Depending on your allegiances/agenda you can essentially cherry pick parts of the ruling to claim an overall victory in the court of public opinion. The PL "won" on some points and City on others.

PL claiming victory on the finding that the concept of FMV is lawful (though I'm not sure City disputed that?)

City claiming victory on the finding that their current implementation is unlawful.

People can argue about the spin of it on forums and twitter but what is the actual outcome and impact on clubs?

It seems that clubs who favour cash injections from related parties via sponsorship (e.g. City, Newcastle etc) will benefit as the rules around FMV are likely to be loosened and they will therefore see a boost to their p&l?

It seems clubs who favour cash injections from related parties via interest free loans are now going to have to see those rules applied evenly to them and they will therefore see a big hit to their P&L every year.

So regardless of who appears to be winning any argument online or in the press, the long and the short of it is that the ruling has a net benefit to clubs like City. We'll be making more and Arsenal will be making less?

This has always felt inevitable when rules were being made not in the name of fairness, but in the name of protecting those with a head start. Loopholes left in by design were always susceptible to challenges like this.

Good summation that mate. This bit is key though:

People can argue about the spin of it on forums and twitter but what is the actual outcome and impact on clubs?

The moronic mindset of the majority of fans who support the likes of the Arse etc. have absolutely no idea how this will affect their clubs. They will, in all likelihood, be in for a nasty shock further down the line as they mistakenly attempt to hold the moral high ground for a few weeks.

 

[Mon Autre]

The Premier League have been called unlawful, unreasonable and unfair.

City can sue for damages.

The PL have called an emergency meeting (why if they’ve won?).

The current APT rules need to be changed.

How this is being spun so both sides won is completely laughable. The press are completely ignoring the fact we have previously voted in favour of APT rules, just not in the current format. I highly suspect us trying to get them thrown out completely was a legal tactic advised by our legal team, you go big not expecting to win big.

Regarding suing for damages (and someone with a legal head will probably know more here). If the PL dismissed some of/most of City's challenges, could the PL seek legal costs? And in which case would it be deemed better to find a settlement?

 

[standupifyouhatemanu]

How strange, I watch BBC breakfast each day and at 07.40 there is always a sports report, i've never see a programme where there wasn't one..... Until today....... no mention of the seismic win against the PL. But obviously there is no agenda.

 

[paulchapo]

I agree with your points but why would we want to smash the PL?

We simply want an open minded , well governed league.

If we win the 115 case we will be in a place of great strength and will become one of the clubs dictating the future of the league.

More smashing certain clubs in the premier league.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Why wouldn’t you?

Regulators should not be getting caught up in emotion especially when working at this level.

There can be lots of reasons, but the underlying one is that they are telling you something you don’t want to hear!

There is a world of difference, however, between getting your barrister through legal aid and the cab rank rule and them telling you that you should plead guilty, and you decide to have a trial against that advice - and a commercial organisation paying huge sums for a KC who they have consciously chosen for that purpose because they are a leader in the field, and ignoring their advice (that they have paid huge sums for).

That takes some force of will.

 

[cheekybids]

The ruling was sent to the pl and city around 2 to 3 weeks ago, it was sent to the other pl clubs yesterday, its impossible to think that one of them wouldnt have leaked it, also the ruling forced the pl to release a poorly and hastily put together face saving statement so it was always going to get out.

As someone mentioned it seems calculated to release it on the anniversary of the Hamas attack 7/10. Was it 911 when spin doctors were found to have told their clients get your dirty washing out in the public so it’s lost in the news.