How is a rival club a witness anyway? Are they just stating what was said in a meeting? Or maybe part of a defence for the PL against an allegation of red corruption? Or the viewpoint of the damned (Everton) or a sympathy vote of a smaller club (Bournemouth)?Regardless of the rulings made public yesterday, it is not a particularly good look for the Premier League that they have called Arsenal etc. as their witnesses in this case. That clearly shows some collusion between the league and "favoured" clubs in my book.
It just backs up City's argument that a small number of clubs are ganging up on City, Newcastle etc. to stifle competition not enhance it.
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.
If that statement wasnt hastily cobbled together the pl are in worse shape than we thoughtI'm not sure about the hastily bit? The ruling could only be released when both parties agreed, if the PL didn't have a statement ready they needed to simply not agree to it's release until they did?
But Arsenal still have a 200k loan. That now has to appear on their PSR submission.........
If we'd lost the media would be shouting from the rooftops. Ad someone posted this response is orchestrated and has taken 12 days of rehearsals, lies and fudging. If we had lost it would have been leaked within a day, it's clear and obvious Master's and his paymasters have been scratching along to implement damage limitation, he really is a nasty piece of shit, his puppet masters (no pun intended) are floundering big time, hopefully the beginning of the end for a knob jockey who only got the job because of his "connections".Have we won or not as the media are not really being clear & prem league seem to think we haven’t won
I assume that's 'terse, hostile and finger pointy' in the same sense that the judge was at the end of Harold shipman's trial?Barney Ronay is a mendacious ****, made clear by his claims that the PL statement and ours were "notable for their contrasting tones":
The Premier League went for airy and vindicated, not angry just sad. Manchester City stuck with terse, hostile and finger-pointy.
So on the one hand we have: “The Premier League welcomes the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system.” But wait. What’s this? “The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful.”
He obviously missed the bit where our statement opened with:
"Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings."
Terse, hostile and finger-pointy, my arse! Go fuck yourself Ronay!
The way I see this is, in commercial terms something only becomes unlawful when tested in courtThe PL stated that loans given by directors did not have to be declared for PSR. This helped Arsenal and others comply with the rules.
It's now been ruled illegal and the PL state it only counts from now and will not be backdated.
If it's unlawful and has been for 3 years, how can they just ignore the loans ? That in itself sounds unlawful. In other words they've failed PSR for 3 years.
Further, even if it starts from now, I assume Arsenal will have to declare any outstanding loans and could therefore he in deep shit. Can anyone enlighten me.
From the BBC, tucked away down near the bottom of their article.
However, on page 163, it outlines that declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages can be sought. This could be a financial problem for the Premier League depending on whether City pursue a claim - which they have indicated they will - and what the size of it is.
Of even greater issue are the comments on page 164, which point out a number of the Premier League's rules are unlawful as they don't include shareholder loans. It is this which forms the basis of City saying the Premier League has "violated UK competition law".
So we can claim relief and damages not the PL, and they allowed shareholder loans which makes their rules unlawful.
Think that shows we got what we came for.
The overwhelming majority of clients follow the advice they are given, although sometimes reluctantly!
No, those appearing for City will say they feel the rules are discriminatory towards there club also because it affects them in x,y,z.How is a rival club a witness anyway? Are they just stating what was said in a meeting? Or maybe part of a defence for the PL against an allegation of red corruption? Or the viewpoint of the damned (Everton) or a sympathy vote of a smaller club (Bournemouth)?
Maybe these clubs were just called up and had no choice but to attend? Maybe some even supported City's point of view but were called by the PL for specific actions?