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

[Damocles]

Who won? I have been asked at least 6 times today. Purely because the Premier League played it down as a small matter of incorrect rules that can easily be rectified.
My answer was make your own mind up. City can claim compensation for millions. The Premier League have to change their rules as they have been declared illegal. Clubs have to pay interest on loans designed to give them a competitive advantage aka cheating. I KNOW who won!

The very idea of "winning" in a case like this is a little bit bonkers.
FIFA claimed a "win" the other day about the Diarra case too. Everybody always claims a win all the time. Ultimately there is no winner and loser, theres just some rules to be tweaked and everything carries on as usual.

If people can't accept that winning and losing don't really exist in a case against the PL then they're going to be very annoyed when the 115 judgement comes out. Nobody will win that either, despite both sides claiming that they did.

We are a shareholder of the PL. There is no us and them, there is just us.

 

[paulchapo]

Prepare for the dogs...

I agree that it did seem a little over the top tbf.

Well I agree he is a writer, a pretty good one at that and as such he may pad it out a bit.

 

[wolviedinho]

Got to be honest, I’m loving it. All this now with us writing to other PL clubs. It’s really quite seismic, and we are the ones pushing it all out.

The only way out of this mess is for the league to stop the 115 case citing bad actor in masters. Blame the problems at his door, hire a new person and we all move on as if it didn’t happen… city get a seat at the top table and we all go out for a nice civilised kick about -:)

Iv been trying to catch up with this thread now for hrs and still it evades. The news is simply astonishing. Everyone had us down as out of control foreign usurpers that needed to be put back in their place.

Grubby human rights abusers who cheat but in reality this case has shown not only that city are correct; the apt rules are unlawful and against the law but we now find out that the league is infact cheats who happen to be also racists and a protectionist racket.

The league even went so far to lie again to the footballing world about the independent tribunals unequivocally response to the unlawful activities of the league and certain shareholders. Hell we even pointed out the shareholding loans disguised investment.

I am seriously impressed with city today. Although if a deal can’t be sorted before the 115 then the lies and twisting of truth will be off the scale from our dear honest regulator, the premier league.

Well done to City for having the balls to stand up to bullies. Well done to city fans for not only hanging in through this depressing off field period but also galvanising our club with pep to achieve greatness.

Now back to page 1162 -:)

 

[malg]

What is it with numpties slamming Stefan, some right idiots on here.

Pointless mate.

 

[Damocles]

Samuel & Cliff not informed and without integrity? Serious allegations.

Samuel has no legal training and Cliff's job is to protect City at all costs. They are not good sources.

 

[johnny crossan]

This was their actual response:

The Premier League has also declined to comment, but a senior source has told BBC Sport that it rejects any view that its summary of the ruling was misleading or inaccurate.

Hardly a strong rebuttal.

so which bit did Simon Cliff get wrong then?

 

[Superace]

For starters, you reposted this tweet. So I presume at the time when you reposted, you were in agreement with Tariq?

I've have respected/agreed with you on many points for years now, but in this particular case, I find your stance very odd indeed. Your unwillingness to back down from your viewpoint that city haven't gained any significant victory in this hearing, is just plain bizarre.

I repost lots of tweets I don't agree too.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I repost lots of tweets I don't agree too.

People have been cancelled for less!

 

[Cobwebcat]

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.

He did address that though. He said his job was to give his opinion and remain impartial while it was City’s job to be biased and aggressive. I may have misquoted that but that was the gist.

 

[BringBackSwales]

This was their actual response:

The Premier League has also declined to comment, but a senior source has told BBC Sport that it rejects any view that its summary of the ruling was misleading or inaccurate.

Hardly a strong rebuttal.

Senior source my arse. Actually I’d rather not reference my arse to the bbc