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

[Rory Bluelow]

Amongst other things, including the switch on burden of proof and the removal of wording that substantially weakened the margin for error in the PL's calculations. Points that were accepted by the panel and were one of the reasons the new rules were declared unlawful. Big "win" imho.

The very idea that a benchmarking process can look accurately into the value proposition of sponsorships to global corporations (whose evolving business models & future plans they cannot understand) is simply laughable imo. It’s like nailing smoke to a wall. Overlay Regional/Geopolitical realities onto the global growth of the EPL and many corporations will want to associate themselves with the dynamic and mega-rich Gulf States. The “evidently” approach would at least mitigate against some of the crudeness inherent in benchmarking. How can Masters and his merry band at PL HQ manage the complexity of these issues - at least Government through Regulation may have a chance of doing so. The bigger picture is there may be a few hiccups along the road but no way are City going to lose here, nor in the ongoing 115/129/130 charges. Buckle up blues.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He's worked with people now employed by Slaughter & May and also Bird and Bird, both of whom work for the PL.

What do you mean ‘worked with’?

 

[paulchapo]

After having the wind taken out of their sails a little with the verdict, our lovely friends in the media have regrouped today and continued with their ant City rhetoric. The best I've seen so far is we are trying to bully the other clubs lol!

Now we have been forced to take the gloves off let's start with the premier league as a starter. Then have the red cartel and their lackeys as a main course. Finally finish off with a sumptuous desert of the scumbag media and every little independent mouthpiece like Goldbridge and the rest.

 

[Centurions]

A box of pagers?

Edit: hmm, Amazon links not allowed now?

 

[Damocles]

Needs a double, if not treble, like. Slam dunk.

The guy didn't do any analysis, the wrote the facts and then asked others for analysis. Something that seemed to slip by in this well poisoning

 

[halfcenturyup]

That said, I do have a very little bit of sympathy for the Premier League's position. They are trying to treat football as a sport when, certainly in England, it's become apparent that football is about money and therefore businesses.

I don't.

The problem isn't that they are treating football as a sport. The problem is that they are trying to micro-manage it on an ad-hoc basis to preserve an artificial and elusive illusion of fair competition (meaning no-one can out-compete the usual suspects). Their rules are ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated, time-consuming and expensive. They need to step back, simplify the financial rules as much as they can, and take simple decisions in the interest of the sport as a whole. They need a CEO with balls and at least a tiny amount of competence.

It's the equivalent of the mess the authorities are making of the game with VAR, offside, handball and the rest. Just keep it simple, for Christ's sake.

 

[M18CTID]

I do like Stefan’s contributions on Talkshite. We were routinely slaughtered about FFP/FSR before them.

I haven’t seen this week’s TS recordings. I think it comes back to what GDM said many pages back. To oversimplify, if we wanted our pending sponsorships to be treated lawfully and more reasonably, we’ve won. If we wanted to bring down the APT system, then that will need further clarification from the judges. Most of us didn’t think we were going for a knock out to begin with.

Yep. From what I can gather, City were intent on tackling the February 24 amendment to the APT rules first and foremost and we won on that so the Premier League can go and get fucked.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Only did 3 years at a sports law firm and instead now is a well connected legal journalist?

You're right, let's believe Martin Samuel instead whose qualifications seem to be "says what I prefer to hear".



This guy is Associate Professor at LSE Law School and Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law. He says essentially the same as Stefan and The Lawyer.

You were commenting on his ability to analyse the law, not his abilities as a journalist, at which he appears to be decent.

 

[BobbyBoy]

What do you mean ‘worked with’?

Employed by the same employer, as per LinkedIn

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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?

Because we know what their end-game is. They might be 'good' for him but they're using him as a mouthpiece for their anti-City agenda.