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

[Kinkys Left Foot]

"Well they would wouldn't they?" As the saying goes. Here is the verdict on the charges.

Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable.

Mandy Rice Davies (RIP) likes this quote



"Well he would, wouldn't he?", by 1979, this phrase had entered the third edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, and is occasionally referred to with the abbreviation MRDA ("Mandy Rice-Davies applies").

 

[M23 Citizen]

Nobody says that. Ever.

Next time you’re in there, just say it for a laugh!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Next time you’re in there, just say it for a laugh!

There would certainly be lots of laughter from some quarters…

 

[VOOMER]

Martin Samuel is a writer. Simon Cliff works directly for City.

Neither of these are unbiased and informed people.

Oh please

 

[johnny crossan]

Yes, if a person talking about the impacts of a legal document was legally trained then his opinions on the legal document would hold more weight.

Cliff is part of the game. His response is part of a strategy formulated by City to benefit City.

It's incredibly weird how the same people who understand that other clubs executives and teams say things that may be a very liberal interpretation of events but they believe that nobody at City could possibly do the same.

So GDM & Samuel & Cliff are in agreement the judgement is a complete vindication of City's case and an indisputable seismic victory which forces the PL to completely rewrite its sponsorship rules. Let me refresh your memory what was written and then explain where they got it wrong and why Stefan is entitled to call it 'absolute nonsense'.

"Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable. The seven conclusions of the arbitration panel governing Manchester City’s case against the Premier League make for sobering reading. Yet, even sober, the hangover is going to last a very long time.

It is not just Associated Party Transaction (APT) rulings that must now be revisited — this decision made them obsolete and unusable overnight. The whole concept of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) is also in the bin, now that shareholder loans, too, are to be judged related-party deals.

That is City’s big win, in many ways their payback. Their accusation was that the league and its members acted like a cartel by introducing rules specifically intended to curb the potential of a minority of clubs. They pointed out that many clubs benefited from interest-free shareholder loans. If that wasn’t a related-party transaction, they argued, what was? And because the arbitration was carried out by serious people, who listen to reason and logic, they agreed."

 

[M12Blue]

Mark my words, you will be on strictly next year. This finance business is a stepping stone to the big time.

Rather Im a celebrity ……. Food challenge eating liquidated Masters balls with any luck

 

[Phil1]

I suppose it wouldn’t be BM if every **** didn’t fall out after a very good day at the office..

 

[blueste41]

One thing that has occurred to me is why is this case been commented on by football journalists and reported on sports pages? It has nothing to do with football! It should be reported by legal correspondents on business pages.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But then wouldn't it have said, "Rule number X is unlawful"? No matter whether it's an easy fix or not, as it stands the Rules are unlawful (so City say they are all null and void until the unfair bits are fixed). That's my understanding / best guess.

Could be.

As I said before, though, I think there have been other things going on that we don't know about. Correspondence between club and PL on how to proceed, for example, according to Cliff; maybe some pressure from red shirts leading to the PL statement; maybe some anger at a process abandoned from the club's side leading to Cliff's letter ....?

I suppose all will become clear eventually.

 

[GSW Blue]

One thing that has occurred to me is why is this case been commented on by football journalists and reported on sports pages? It has nothing to do with football! It should be reported by legal correspondents on business pages.

You make a very good point and whilst I agree with you, we are both probably wrong!