That's true but the main issue for City was the painful delay in the turgid process. If we can see the figures quickly we can make quicker decisons and move on. It is the unfair delays which caused us the most damage and the Judges agreed with us on that.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.
No, "whataboutery" has no place in law,If they delayed as suggested, is this something we could reference in the 115 case? They claim we haven't cooperated but going by their standards, we have done?
In the end.An amicable divorce then?
I'm being paid by the cartel. Why else?Just seen this reply and if it was serious then heaven help us. Yesterday's verdict was the bridgehead, the PL simply want to destroy City and direct its income streams back to the cartel majority. Lose and our Gulf investment sources were effectively killed but victory kept us viable for 115 D Day down the road. We briefed Samuel to provide a clear and truthful account of our success and Pannick et al prepared for the inevitable media lies. It was a crucial moment in the ten year attempt to annihilate us and Mr Borson turned against the club and our only reliable journalist ally at the moment of our triumph. Why?
No, the panel ruled they must be set aside meaning they need to be re-assessed.Sorry if it’s been asked already but can the sponsorship deals we had refused with Abu Dhabi bank and extra Etihad deals now be announced?
Those Moncler jumpers you usually rock on TS don’t come cheap.. :-)I'm being paid by the cartel. Why else?
And that’s half the trouble , he will and probably does get labelled as a city fan boy , tolmie has the inside track that is invaluable to this forum , but luckily for him he remains anonymous and rightly so with his obvious connections , Stefan is there to be ridiculed, and sadly it’s from people on here who really should just wind their necks in and realise he’s a blue right at the end of the day.I get what you're saying, but he's absolutely not on there to defend City or fight our corner.
He's on there to try and debunk some of the legal jargon, so that the average Joe can go away with a certain level of understanding.
I think he's sat on the fence throughout his Talksport debates, aside from saying that the 115 charged will be incredibly difficult for the PL to prove hold any water.
He is still doing a great job, however, of reaching out to those of us with some form of intelligence, who are able to just about grasp how difficult this case is to judge.
Unfortunately, the above isn't your average Talksport listener, and they just label him as a City fan boy, and ignore the majority of what he says.
My take, is that there is that much information about, that Stefan has now become part of a small group of people that I listen to; albeit I take it all with a fair small pinch of salt.
@tolmie's hairdoo has been on the money in a lot of what he has fed us, albeit I appreciate that @slbsn information is more an experienced opinion rather than information he's been fed.
No - not approved. The rejection is set aside but City still need to show FMV unless they are correct that all APT rules now fall away pending replacement.Sorry if it’s been asked already but can the sponsorship deals we had refused with Abu Dhabi bank and extra Etihad deals now be announced?
I think there may be something in this. If you look at the APT documents it is absurd the amount of hoops we had to jump through with the sponsorships. The PL admitted they had staffing problems. The 115 case has been running at the same time (along with Chelsea, Leicester, Everton etc). They can hardly accuse us of non-coperation if they themselves have not been co-operating with us. The impression you get from reading the ATP documents is that the PL is an out-of-control shambles. They lurch from one crisis to another.If they delayed as suggested, is this something we could reference in the 115 case? They claim we haven't cooperated but going by their standards, we have done?