Dribble
Well-Known Member
I'd imagine both "Gulf State" Clubs will be applying for backdated compound interest, as well as costs.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Is it a double bill with alan twat davies..
Stop this **** from playing the Coop Arena
Bitter twat
Gosh some of the criticism aimed at this Stefan fella is pretty poor. It strikes me that it's a highly complex legal case that not many of us can get to grips with, and one that is highly unlikely to be polarised to a simple win/lose.
I suppose that's why people are siding with Samuel.
I suppose that's why people are siding with Samuel.
Ah but City are the ones that have been obstructing and prevaricating to the maximum level they can get away with… according to KFA’s regarding the 115.Having ploughed through all 175 pages I think the worst element of this whole saga is the contempt shown to City over the sponsorship deals at First Abu Dhabi Bank, Emirates Palace, and Etihad. If you read the incredible volume of correspondence it is clear that the PL and their financial people dragged their feet and put obstacle after obstacle in City's way. The Etihad deal was dragged out for almost 12 months. The PL told City it was "above market value" but refused to discuss how they arrived at their figures. City were told they couldnt see the comparison with other deals on the database.
The Judges slammed this despicable behaviour. These three delayed deals have probably cost City tens of millions of pounds. The PL didn't respond to letters and emails from City repeatedly. This was just pure obstruction driven by bad faith. No wonder City sued them. Just think about it. Three firms who want to invest in a business in North West England are obstructed at every opportunity. A total disgrace. No one has reported on this properly. There are pages and pages of the PL and its financial people just taking the piss out of City. It's in the link below starting at section 441.
Perhaps we were just following the PL’s lead in handling complex financial and legal communications by adopting the Master’s ostrich position.
It’s staggering the contempt and malevolence shown by the PL to City.
I'm siding with CityGosh some of the criticism aimed at this Stefan fella is pretty poor. It strikes me that it's a highly complex legal case that not many of us can get to grips with, and one that is highly unlikely to be polarised to a simple win/lose.
I suppose that's why people are siding with Samuel.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Apparently the £9bn per annum Premier League were "short staffed". Come on mate, give em a break...Having ploughed through all 175 pages I think the worst element of this whole saga is the contempt shown to City over the sponsorship deals at First Abu Dhabi Bank, Emirates Palace, and Etihad. If you read the incredible volume of correspondence it is clear that the PL and their financial people dragged their feet and put obstacle after obstacle in City's way. The Etihad deal was dragged out for almost 12 months. The PL told City it was "above market value" but refused to discuss how they arrived at their figures. City were told they couldnt see the comparison with other deals on the database.
The Judges slammed this despicable behaviour. These three delayed deals have probably cost City tens of millions of pounds. The PL didn't respond to letters and emails from City repeatedly. This was just pure obstruction driven by bad faith. No wonder City sued them. Just think about it. Three firms who want to invest in a business in North West England are obstructed at every opportunity. A total disgrace. No one has reported on this properly. There are pages and pages of the PL and its financial people just taking the piss out of City. It's in the link below starting at section 441.
Problem with media appearances, no doubt paid and I’m not slamming the guy or anyone else for that btw, is that they invite along editorial lines and you are expected to go with the flow so to speak.
I’m in complete disagreement with his or any other assessment this is a score draw or a narrow victory for us that changes little and whilst Talksport might want to trot that line and have guests say similar, it doesn’t make it true.
City have briefed this morning where they stand. Anyone not listening is a fool imo.
I honestly don't think it is that at all. I don't think he is toeing any lines. I don't even think he is 'trying' to stay impartial.
I just think he has a professional opinion, based on his reading and experience, and he gives it. He gives it honestly and without pretence. He seems invested in his field, and I don't think there's anything worth him compromising that principle, not even footballing allegiance. I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if he also had a professional code of conduct that covered stating things with honesty and integrity or something along those lines.
I am in complete disagreement with his main takeaway of this. Not the wider details he discussed, just the main summation of who won what, and why it would even matter through what 'lens' that is viewed.
But I don't question his reasons, reasoning or intention. Just his (in this case) opinion.
At least based on how I read what I have read. Which is not the full 175 page document, just to be clear, but the two statements, and the summary page verdict.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Having ploughed through all 175 pages I think the worst element of this whole saga is the contempt shown to City over the sponsorship deals at First Abu Dhabi Bank, Emirates Palace, and Etihad. If you read the incredible volume of correspondence it is clear that the PL and their financial people dragged their feet and put obstacle after obstacle in City's way. The Etihad deal was dragged out for almost 12 months. The PL told City it was "above market value" but refused to discuss how they arrived at their figures. City were told they couldnt see the comparison with other deals on the database.
The Judges slammed this despicable behaviour. These three delayed deals have probably cost City tens of millions of pounds. The PL didn't respond to letters and emails from City repeatedly. This was just pure obstruction driven by bad faith. No wonder City sued them. Just think about it. Three firms who want to invest in a business in North West England are obstructed at every opportunity. A total disgrace. No one has reported on this properly. There are pages and pages of the PL and its financial people just taking the piss out of City. It's in the link below starting at section 441.
And these cunts have charged us with non-cooperation.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,733
There are more questions than answers...
The article in The Lawyer ends with this nugget...
As is often the way with cases like this, if you want to know who really won, wait for the costs decision.
So, why the delay re costs ?
Also the PL will have to reconsider the sponsorship deals they rejected ie Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank. So what are the PL doing, are they just saying "No, not at FMV rejected" or are the saying the deals should be capped at a maximum value of their choosing? Anyone know...
It's looks like if the PL don't sign off the sponsorships there will be another tribunal. Buy they are taking the piss because that means more months will pass without us receiving the funds to which we are legally entitled.
Assume they’ll provide us with the benchmarking analysis and the databank and then it’s on us to make an argument.
I doubt we’ll be able to argue they’re at FMV as a consequence of getting that to be honest, which is partly why I don’t see it as a big win on those decisions as much as others.
ayrshire_blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 6,111
Gosh some of the criticism aimed at this Stefan fella is pretty poor. It strikes me that it's a highly complex legal case that not many of us can get to grips with, and one that is highly unlikely to be polarised to a simple win/lose.
I suppose that's why people are siding with Samuel.
Agree.
I don't think it does us any favours at all to become too tribal on issues where it's clearly complex even for those with appropriate and relevant degrees and experience in the subject of sports law.
Of course we want to defend our club, but if we start piling on those who offer some balance just because balance is not what we want to hear, that's a dangerous and unnecessary path to go down.