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

[halfcenturyup]

Haha. Just read Delaney's latest piece. Apparently it's all due to clubs being state-owned. Not the PL putting in place, at the behest of certain clubs, unlawful rules to counter a perceived threat that hadn't at the time, or has now for that matter, materialised. And nothing to do with him just releasing a(nother) book about the evils of sportswashing, I don't suppose.

I am still amazed that the tribunal accepted there was a single reason for APT rules other than to stop Newcastle and City. The evidence put before them was weak imho (PL been discussing APTs since 2018 - why then I wonder? - but no formal discussions until post-Newcastle; UEFA's charges against City - which as we know were all thrown out; and the PL's case against City - which hasn't concluded so is no indication of any reason at all to do anything, if it is why not just deduct points now? Can't get my head around any of that. Especially as the PL, I don't think, can point to a single sponsorship that has subsequently been shown to be "evidently" above fmv. As I said, the tribunal needed fewer lawyers and more accountants :)

Anyway, Delaney is a funny little fella, isn't he?

For those that want to read it without giving him a click:

https://archive.ph/H5swc

There are some crackers in it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

My bet is their chairmen do not understand what is going on.

Don't want to keep going back to Delaney's piece (or anybody else's) but you can see that from some of the comments from "rival" clubs. They want to kick City out of the league because of ..... reasons. Even the idiot Delaney poured scorn on that idea.

 

[KS55]

Interesting times ahead, I personally don't feel that our win is enough to force Masters out of the PL. They will look at how the rules can be amended and aim to keep as many of the current restrictions in place as possible. Seek to create the illusion that they were in the right all along.

However, the big unknown is the 115 Case currently being run.

A few weeks into the hearing both sides will now be getting a "feel" for how this is panning out, If the PL are winning many of the charges and feel they are in a strong position then I can see them standing by Masters, but what if they are are seeing their charges being unfounded. Can they afford yet another humiliation with the costs escalating.

My take is, if Masters goes in the coming weeks it is more of an indicator that the main case has gone south on them.

I wonder if our legal team, using the recently disclosed emails will punt the line that the PL’s case is driven by bad faith. If they establish that the PL will have a hard time making close run items stick.

 

[cheekybids]

Seeing as they fine us 10s of thousands of pounds for being 10 seconds late for a kickoff, I say we MUST absolutely pursue them for damages for delaying decisions on our sponsorship deals. It's just not on.

The rubbish that I read on ESPN that our deals have to be fair market value as we can't get more for our stadium and shirt sponsorship is just criminal, seeing as we have been the standard bearers for the premiere league for more than a decade. What have Arsenal really won in 20 years other than a domestic cup? But they're entitled to the same as European and world champions? Cry me a river.

The rags 75 million for shirt sponsorship only was something like a decade ago. If you account for inflation, then we are seriously underpaid for our success. Just take a gander at how much player prices have increased since those days.

One thing I've learned over the years, the squeaky wheel always gets the grease, no matter how incompetent you are.

Ask a cartel fan how many times a day do they think of City, we are on their mind every moment….. we are ‘massive’ !

 

[cheekybids]

I wonder if our legal team, using the recently disclosed emails will punt the line that the PL’s case is driven by bad faith. If they establish that the PL will have a hard time making close run items stick.

If there’s anything I’ve learnt from these recent arbitration hearings they never appear to rule that it’s bad faith even if it’s blatantly obvious & they write a paragraph giving examples of bad faith.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Have costs been awarded yet?
Then say we have lost...

All this reminds me of when I moved school as a wee 13yr old. (Now 50)..Cock of the school thought he would just bully me constantly until one day I smacked the fucker so hard I broke my knuckles. He wasn't cock of the school anymore.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Haha. Just read Delaney's latest piece. Apparently it's all due to clubs being state-owned. Not the PL putting in place, at the behest of certain clubs, unlawful rules to counter a perceived threat that hadn't at the time, or has now for that matter, materialised. And nothing to do with him just releasing a(nother) book about the evils of sportswashing, I don't suppose.

I am still amazed that the tribunal accepted there was a single reason for APT rules other than to stop Newcastle and City. The evidence put before them was weak imho (PL been discussing APTs since 2018 - why then I wonder? - but no formal discussions until post-Newcastle; UEFA's charges against City - which as we know were all thrown out; and the PL's case against City - which hasn't concluded so is no indication of any reason at all to do anything, if it is why not just deduct points now? Can't get my head around any of that. Especially as the PL, I don't think, can point to a single sponsorship that has subsequently been shown to be "evidently" above fmv. As I said, the tribunal needed fewer lawyers and more accountants :)

Anyway, Delaney is a funny little fella, isn't he?

For those that want to read it without giving him a click:

https://archive.ph/H5swc

There are some crackers in it.

Got bored early on reading Delaney’s piece.

It’s astonishing though that once again the whole media narrative has been twisted away from the root causes of all these issues, plus what came out in the tribunals findings.

Not surprised of course, but it’s laughable all the same.

Fuck ‘em.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I wonder if our legal team, using the recently disclosed emails will punt the line that the PL’s case is driven by bad faith. If they establish that the PL will have a hard time making close run items stick.

That will likely be an element of defence, but it seems tribunals/panels place more weight on witness statements of what an email means, than on what is actually said in an email itself (refer to the Brighton exec's email and his witness statement in front of the tribunal). Quite rightly, I suppose.

One of the many reasons I am confident on the 115. The PL won't have much more than circumstantial evidence, largely in the form of emails, on the most serious matters at least, and it seems that can be easily countered with witness statements (not that that will be the only defence, of course). I suppose the weight of the circumstantial evidence would increase with repetitive descriptions of behaviour in multiple emails to which UEFA didn't have access. Nevertheless, witness statements seem to trump emails.

But yes, will likely be an element of defence. Why not if it helps increase doubt in the panel's minds?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Have costs been awarded yet?
Then say we have lost...

All this reminds me of when I moved school as a wee 13yr old. (Now 50)..Cock of the school thought he would just bully me constantly until one day I smacked the fucker so hard I broke my knuckles. He wasn't cock of the school anymore.

Remember that time I called you a ****? I take it back with sincere apologies :)

And no, costs not awarded yet. Nor have damages been assessed or other relief issued. Which means the tribunal hasn't finished yet.



Edit: Btw, the injunctive relief is presumably what Cliff was referring to in his letter. The tribunal has given the parties the opportunity to consider what further relief is appropriate (not whether, mind you, but what). It seems from Cliff's letter that discussions between the club and the PL about what should happen next were taking place but then the PL statement unilaterally concluded that only minor modifications were needed. I am guessing the club will go back (or has gone back) to the tribunal for an injunction to prevent that from happening?

Makes sense to me, but could all be bollocks, of course :)

 

[Rammy Blue]

Remember that time I called you a ****? I take it back with sincere apologies :)

And no, costs not awarded yet. Nor have damages been assessed or other relief issued. Which means the tribunal hasn't finished yet.

View attachment 134629

I suppose, and hopefully you may be able to confirm, but the answers to those points above I assume will give cast iron clarity as to who was the “winner” in the hearing?