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

[schfc6]

PL claiming our letter and content are incorrect. This is going to be a proper war.

 

[johnny crossan]

Perhaps not as he has been very busy reading the whole 176 pages of the report and commented in detail on a lot of it. It's not his job to put forward a pro-City stance, that is the club's responsibility. People should lay off Stefan, he's been staunch in defending us (based on facts) and they should be more critical of the silence from City for much of the last 8 months.

The club have conducted themselves correctly throughout and Stefan has got the big call wrong - he's has rubbished Martin Samuel and contradicted City's legal spokesman. Needs to wind his neck in now.

 

[M23 Citizen]

It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.

Only one party was found to have enacted unlawfully, has to rewrite its rule book possibly pay compensation.

That party isn't City.

Pin this post^

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Thoughts on City seeking damages for the blocked sponsorships?

I hope they go nuclear on all issues.

They have had to continue to to 'do business' with people who they know have acted to destroy them.

Can you imagine the media/public uproar if Khaldoon had walked out of the directors box before the end of a game without shaking hands.

City are dealing with dangerous snakes ....and snakes need killing.

Clear the swamp City !!

 

[HelloCity]

It’s possible for Stephan to be objective AND a City fan. Have a think.

I think it’s more because the view is completely at odds with City’s general council’s position and this is therefore causing some confusion.

From City’s letter (BBC extract)…

"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies," Cliff claims.

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.

"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT Rules, nor does it state that the APT Rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls."

The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".

He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."

Cliff added that it was “not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements.

"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law.

 

[slbsn]

I've been disappointed in his mutual response considering he's a Blue. Martin Samuel's gave us better support.

Martin Samuel's article is total nonsense though. Who do you think reads and agrees with that piece? Nobody outside BM. Pointless.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

The compulsive need for media outlets (and some fans) to categorise a 175-page judgment into a binary "Win" or "Lose" statement which completely guts it of all context and nuance is a big part of the problem here. In fact, it's symptomatic of the way society has evolved. Nobody has time for detail, they just want a sound bite that explains everything in 10 seconds. Legal proceedings don't allow for that level of oversimplification. I can see that part of the reason Stefan is getting criticised (unfairly, in my view), is because he refuses to give into these false dichotomies. It's never as simple, never as black and white, as most layman want it to be. He has gone for the term 'score draw' to appease this crowd because he knows neither of the extreme scenarios (win/lose) are accurate descriptions.

Who "won" is simply a PR exercise that carries absolutely no substance. What does carry substance is the actions that the respective parties will now have to take. And we know the Premier League now have work to do for their rules to comply with law. That work will be even more difficult given the impact it will have on a number of clubs in the league. No, the rules aren't completely buried forever, but if they come back it will have to be in a different form. This will have also impacted them reputationally in the eyes of some, but whether that will come to matter or not remains to be seen.

City, on the other hand, may now have recourse to seek damages. And perhaps their objective was to trash APT forever (I'm not sure it was) in which case they haven't achieved that. Or perhaps prove in a court some level of discrimination in a way that can support their charges in the other case. The extent of how pleased they will be will depend upon whatever objective they had in mind, and all we can do is speculate.

Or they want a post that they can read in 10 seconds and which supports their view.....

 

[GSW Blue]

Maybe YOU should be the one to find evidence of the thing you said happened, happening.

Lord Pannik’s opening line on the 115!

 

[Blueknows]

Apparently the rags regime is meeting today to discuss the future of ten bob. Wonder if they will sack him to get the pl shitshow off the front page

Probably they've got history for taking the limelight away from anyone but themselves

 

[Eds]

I'd say no. But other views are available.

Fair enough although would you agree that the club is happier with the result than the PL?