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

[Son of Merv]

I’d be amazed if it’s United , Liverpool , Arsenal , Spurs , Villa , Newcastle and Chelsea who have sided with the PL , those , aswell as City are the biggest losers if these sanctions are allowed to continue, I doubt it if it’s the likes of Wolves , Palace et al that have sided with City , but at the end of the day these restrictions affect all PL clubs , all City are doing is telling the PL to fuck off for everyone’s benefit aren’t they?, there seems to be a 50/50 split , I don’t see Everton or Forest voting against us , they’ve been shafted more than any club with these rules the PL have dreamt up. It’s one rule for all that City are after.

This article indicates that Manchester City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Everton, Nottingham Forest and Sheffield United voted against the Premier League and Crystal Palace and Burnley abstained.

undefined| All Football

Visit All Football to get football news, live scores, highlights, videos and commentary for EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A

www.google.com

 

[halfcenturyup]

What evidence could other clubs possibly have that they can step forward with.

I remember Liverpool claiming that the number of sponsors at that level is limited and that City's contacts are so overwhelming that their club is at a disadvantage. I suppose the corollary is that City get the pick of the best sponsors, and other potential sponsors may not want to upset City by sponsoring its competitors? Not sure what else they could have apart from that. And not sure how true the arguments are, or if they have any legal merit anyway.

Apart from that, they could just show support for the rule and sporting fairness, neither of which will carry much weight in the final analysis I imagine.

The question at the end of the day is whether the APT rules are legal or not, and that depends, imho, on whether they are needed or not to maintain sporting integrity. There is a good argument for fair value, of course, but the "man on the Clapham omnibus" in me says the onerous requirements approved recently around APTs, targeted clearly at a couple of clubs, are on shakier ground.

Could all be bollocks, of course :)

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

You mentioned the rags mate , like I did about 20 plus pages ago , so yeah , I’m on the same drugs as you by all accounts , so why do you think the rags might be on our page ?

Potentially, because of Ratcliffe, multi club ownership, voting with City against the new anchoring rules that ties a club with 5x the amount of TV revenue of the bottom club, poaching Berrada.

You also mentioned, Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool, non of which will be in our corner.

 

[jonah62]

Gotta be white

You sound like the Premier League

 

[lancs blue]

It will have been Citys lawyers telling the club to not engage in sort of statements. And rightly so.

Yep, absolutely no point in getting involved in a public slanging match, especially if it's with the media.

 

[cheekybids]

So the premier league clubs suggest a vote from which the majority are all american owned to stop inflated sponsorship.a rigged vote where theres only one outcome seems fair!.

Democracy is only supported when they have the majority.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Makes us look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole.At the same time they are defending the 115 charges too, so I’m sure greater minds than mine are behind this, but it won’t win us any popularity contests.Also, if unlimited spending prevails, we risk turning premier league into La Ligurian or SPL !Not sure how I feel on this.

It only makes the club look greedy and dismissive of the league as a whole if you accept the way this is being painted in an article using cherry-picked phrases from a huge (and presumably very complicated) legal document, chosen by someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand the legal issues at stake, and supported by quotes from an unnamed source presumably being the same guy as the one who gave the document to the journalist in the first place. The whole article was written by a guy who couldn't pick up on the legal nuances, only the issues that a football journalist would recognise.

Have a little more confidence in the people who own the club. They deserve that, at least, and I have no doubt they know what they are doing and why.

 

[lancs blue]

They have no choice , much like any big club

if the rags are on our page - so are our other previous enemies

Not necessarily, with scruffy Jim now in charge of football matters at the swamp he could well have a very different view to the US owners of Liverpool, Arsenal and others on the associated party rule change.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not necessarily, with scruffy Jim now in charge of football matters at the swamp he could well have a very different view to the US owners of Liverpool, Arsenal and others on the associated party rule change.

Simply put, he wants to pump in as much money as he can from Ineos. These rules may prevent that, assuming they are applied to United, of course.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Simply put, he wants to pump in as much money as he can from Ineos. These rules may prevent that, assuming they are applied to United, of course.

Hilarious that someone could turn up at United and think the main issue is that they've haven't spent enough on the squad though.