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

[BerkshireBlue]

Yes, mentioned that earlier, they’re going to get in a mess with what they do retrospectively. Highly doubt they’ll apply the loan interests, which is why I think this’ll end up back in tribunal again at some point.

No it's not retrospectively. Remember the PSR calculations are a rolling year period. So to pass this year's PSR rules they'll need to add that interest in to the past seasons. So it's not retesting whether they failed last year as that's not going to happen but they can fail it this year due to the debt and different calculations on the previous 3 years results and there's not a thing they can do to stop that as the accounts are already submitted.

 

[threespires]

I do think that City have considered all responses & outcomes to ensure it plays out how they want, losing battles but winning the war. Like a grandmaster they’ll be many moves ahead.

If you compare Masters and Al Mubarak's CVs and experience as strategic leaders the kindest thing you can say about Masters is he's somewhat overmatched. Indeed I presume he was partly selected for his pliability and the ease with which certain clubs felt they could manage him but ultimately that kind of thing backfires. I don't claim to know City's end game but there must be some PL clubs looking at the current situation and wondering if we might not be seeing a changing of the guard.

Despite the red shirts wishes, ultimately nothing lasts for ever and they'll always be someone or something smarter and bigger than you comes along. It's like our second favourite manager in the league has told us..."Eras come to an end".

 

[Paladin]

The midtable teams (looking at you United) are wondering how much of the TV deal they just sacrificed for this.

Part of me wonders whether City challenged a whole raft of rules, knowing that the majority wouldn't stick, purely to make the PL spend time, effort and money in an extensive defense of their rules. After all, we could just as easily have contested the ones we were confident on and the hearing would have been done and dusted long ago.

Khaldoon's comments about spending a fortune on lawyers rather than bowing to oppression comes to mind. The remaining money for distribution to other clubs diminishes, but we are picking up the major prize money anyway and are less reliant on that money.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Lots of appeals to authority based arguments In this thread, in a situation where authority has been proven biased, rigged and a bunch of bastards.

Just because someone “knows” things. Doesn’t mean they have any interest in being fair or want to tell you the whole truth.
Be weary who you trust blues.

 

[Tbilisi]

And that narrative has been bought hook, line and sinker by some Bluemooners.

Many on this forum have been demanding a more aggressive approach from City for yonks. Now we have that, some (other) posters are losing their bottle. If nothing else,’we can see in the ruling that the Prem has been a discriminatory cartel.

Dead right, City and the City fans are always best with our backs against the wall swinging.

Its what we do.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Ive done a little work on what I think Khaldoons speech should look like if he attends the Premier League meeting next week. Thought with the room being filled with yank owners this may be something they understand.

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, dicks. And Liverpool, united and Arsenal are pussies. And Masters and the Premier League are assholes.

Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes — assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls.

The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate — and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are only an inch and a half away from assholes.

I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Fuck yeah.

That's more Seth Rogen than Khaldoon Al Mubarak, imo.

 

[lust overlord]

And that narrative has been bought hook, line and sinker by some Bluemooners.

Many on this forum have been demanding a more aggressive approach from City for yonks. Now we have that, some (other) posters are losing their bottle. If nothing else,’we can see in the ruling that the Prem has been a discriminatory cartel.

Aggressive is fine,providing it can be backed up by facts to show its justified.

I'm going to trust the clubs stance.

The supporters of the usual suspects see City's actions as an attack on their clubs.
Probably because they all know that the premier league has been pretty much their poodle since its inception.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Part of me wonders whether City challenged a whole raft of rules, knowing that the majority wouldn't stick, purely to make the PL spend time, effort and money in an extensive defense of their rules. After all, we could just as easily have contested the ones we were confident on and the hearing would have been done and dusted long ago.

Khaldoon's comments about spending a fortune on lawyers rather than bowing to oppression comes to mind. The remaining money for distribution to other clubs diminishes, but we are picking up the major prize money anyway and are less reliant on that money.

I guess City could be using the challenge to numerous rules as a sort of delaying bluffing tactic. It draws out proceedings and can exhaust the other sides stamina and financial resources, forcing them to concede and accept points which they otherwise may not have. The Post Office did this against the Postmasters. Seems quite common place. Perhaps others on here could confirm or otherwise?

 

[flb]

It’s fucking crazy beyond belief that you limit the growth of the most successful club in your league over the last decade. We question Masters ability as a CEO but the blokes background is Sales & Marketing, it’s insane he would say there is a limit that this record breaking club can achieve. How do you negotiate a better TV deal when you effectively saying a club doesn’t deserve a higher value after becoming the most watched team in the world. Hes dismissing brand recognition & the strength of his league.

And we have achieved all of our recent success not spending as much as our rivals, so you have to ask the question what the fuck is it all about, to a certain degree it feels like we are doing Newcastles work for them, the amendments were definitely brought in to stunt their development and they are very quiet as a club in all of this.
Its going to be very interesting which clubs throw their weight behind City now.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is from The Lawyer. It's a legal publication. You'd be hard pressed to claim bias or misunderstanding from these. They pretty much echo what Stefan has been saying since the start.

https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/

I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christian-smith-5345a9121?

His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR

www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.