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

The journalists have been a disgrace with their reporting of this case. City bad Premier League good. They haven't explained any of the rule changes to the masses but have said that this a fight for the survival of the League. Fucking hell hyperbole at its finest.
Yep, I was listening to SSN this morning (Winter et al) and they were all obviously starting with the premise that we were in the wrong for doing this without really being able or willing to distinguish between related party rules, associated party rules or the 115 charges.
 
& with his assets he’ll continue to get richer & richer buying more & more which takes it away from working classes. They don’t keep the cash in the bank as that’s a bad investment but he’d still be a billionaire.
That's a completely different argument, he is self made and respect to him for that.
 
It has been reported and never denied by the PL.
Vetted ??

The likelihood is that he was offered the job IF he changed investment rules to protect the red cartel clubs and went after City !!

Three other eminently suitable candidates were offered the role but withdrew when the understood the mandate.


Get it all out in the public domain City.
 
I'm way behind here, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but I thought 14 clubs had to vote for something in order for it to be passed?
It's a 70 per cent majority. So 14 out of 20 is 70 per cent. Minus the 2 abstentions. 70 per cent of 18 is 12 ish. So they got their majority JUST!
 
Been busy this week and have no time to plough through 120-odd pages on this. I may therefore be duplicating stuff that's been said before, in whioch case I'm sorry. Anyway, here goes.

1. The bottom line is that this is going to be a highly technical case that depends on very complex intricacies of UK competition law. Such cases are usually very difficult for a claimant to prove.

2. However, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed to see various prominent City accounts on X wading in a criticising the club based on the reporting of this issue so far.

3. For a start, nearly all of what we know about the matter is based on a story that a newspaper has sourced based on an extensive leak from our opponent or from a rival member club within it. That constitutes a bad-faith source which is deliberately giving a skewed, incomplete and likely misleading view of events, so I'd wager that City's position would look more ostensibly reasonable if we had an impartial account produced in good faith of the respective positions of the parties.

4. Further, I think that the senior executives of the club deserve our trust at this point. That could change as events progress, though I hope and believe it won't. However, I don't see grounds at this stage for any committed Blue to mistrust them.

5. For City to have brought this action, those running the club must believe the following two things among others: (a) that City have suffered a genuine loss as a result of the PL applying the provisions we're challenging; and (b) that such application has been discriminatory.

6. IF the two circumstances listed in point 5 were true (and please note that this is a conditional sentence, while also referring back to point 4), it'd be perfectly reasonable for the club to seek to safeguard its position in this way. Indeed, there's a strong argument that the directors would be remiss if they failed to do so.

I don't see that it's currently possible to say any more than the above with any authority. But, as with the thread on the so-called '115 charges', where literally almost nothing of note has happened in public since February 2023, BM is nonetheless likely to amass thousands of pages of comment.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.