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

[ancoats]

Idiotic response.
Talksport give me no guidance what to say and would LOVE me to say the most extreme things imaginable.

So you did not have to backtrack on your quotes about United's £75 million PSR fudge with Covid-19 and Jim's shares fees, Funny I thought you said on the show a couple of days later United had complained to the show about how I was putting it across that they cheated PSR,

Again I quote.

Then you said that United did not break any rules in doing this, but other clubs also did the same but were not allowed to add so many COVID-19 allowances because of lost match-day revenue. You then added that Arsenal has around 60,000 at the Emirates, and they could only add around a couple of million in allowances.

Cheating is cheating in any book and when you control others' spending allowances you can declare and then allow United to Fudge or Cheat PSR is OK

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Just listened to you on the 93:20 podcast now I understand what you have been saying and thanks for an excellent explanation of things
I would urge everyone to try and listen, especially those who have a negative view of Stefan. I know it’s behind the paywall but I would like to suggest to you, Stefan, that you ask Ahsan to make it available free

100% concur with this.

A brilliant aside to the factual stuff was his view on Cliff's email and linking it speculatively to the 115 case. All very positive. I'll let someone else explain...

 

[give it to gordon]

Did the first three candidates not get through the vetting process carried out by LFC and Utd?

I thought they were offered the job two said no immediately and one quit after 6 weeks I think

 

[Vic]

It specifically mentions (twice) that the tribunal found the rules breached competition law?

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

View attachment 134421

I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)

 

[BobbyBoy]

I'd fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Panja's main sources are Gill & Parry, plus probably Nick Harris. That's not "good sources".

Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?

 

[bluemanchester]

did they Batter him?

No, they took him to a dark plaice

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I thought they were offered the job two said no immediately and one quit after 6 weeks I think

I think the details of that and also clattenbergs sudden mid season departure to Saudi are all stories yet to come out.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Is this the Stefan Borson thread, or am I in the wrong place? =)

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Not sure why everyone is piling on to Stefan to be honest. It's not cut and dry, it very rarely is. City wanted the February amendments flagged as illegal and they got that but I also believe the premier league are right in that only changes are necessary to make them comply. Whether they can get those changes in is the question, I'm not convinced they can so their only option is to remove them for now. For instance the 10 day turnaround looks like it's a non starter to me, it's impossible to judge a complex sponsor within 10 days, it could take 12 months like they did with our sponsors. A limit is needed but it can't take long so it's a catch 22 situation for them.

Whatever the PL do it will weaken the rules anyway. For instance they have to give access to their databank data which is a massive win for City as they can then look at everyone else deals and actually maximise all the sponsors around that. This alone is a massive win and worth it' weight in gold to the right data analysts.

 

[blueste41]

I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)

It says exactly what I shared in the screen grab!