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

[halfcenturyup]

Sounds right. It's a complex area but declaratory relief allows parties to sort things out, injunctive relief is a court order saying what should be done to remedy the wrong done (to City).

Maybe the best thing would be that the bad faith shown by the PL has tainted the PL's standing in the bringing the 115 charges and drops them, with a statement saying they are unsustainable in the light of the Tribunal’s finding that the APT rules were created to disadvantage competition, and the PSR rules, while still in force, are similarly tainted.

Then City say that in exchange for not claiming damages / costs, we'll help you write the new rules!

:) I could suggest a few new rules.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

This is what the media in this country do. We can't even know if we've won. 2+2=whatever they want.

 

[cheekybids]

Its so amusing that they throw this in like everything in law and in general life isnt a technicality. I mean take him in reality he is a raving lunatic who writes complete nonsense to appeal to a specific set of morons but technically he is a journalist.

It’s like the whole plan wasn’t trying to destroy City on a technicality.

 

[flb]

Unfortunately over recent years we have seen a growing tendency towards greater regulation, particularly financial, and I have to say that the authorities have made a pretty rotten job of it. The authorities, or the cartel, or whoever are so scared that very rich owners will dominate football at the expense of the "traditional" elite that they have missed, or do not wish to see that these clubs have manipulated the PL into a series of regulations that ensure that super wealthy owners cannot use their wealth to grow and improve their clubs. The regulations also enable owners to take money out of their clubs and the game, load their clubs with debt and generally run it unlike any other industry. The paradox is that, although football is not just like any other business football clubs have to be much more business like than they were some 20 years ago. And this is what the regulations rule out. City's lawyers have struck the first blow against this insidious, dishonest regime and helped take the first step back to sanity. It won't be perfect but it will be a lot better and a lot more honest ... and lawful. So I still believe that your original post describes exactly the kind of owners who belong not in any other business but in the PL. The regulations do not protect football or owners "who act like custodians" but the kind of owners who should not be allowed within a million miles of any English club.

And it was only by the skin of their teeth that Everton managed to stay in the PL, they so very easily could have got relegated through points deductions and entered the abyss, who would have bought Everton without PL football? Same for Forest, yet those wankers in Trafford escape any punishment or point deductions.

Its as bent as fuck, the whole of the PL regime is bent as fuck and not just Masters.

 

[M12Blue]

Obvious as f#ck now why Qataris weren’t ‘allowed’ to purchase the scum

 

[Greenandblue]

It's easy to think there are lots of conspiracy theorists, over-sensitive City fans taking offence at every perceived slight, imagining a carefully orchestrated cartel PR campaign against us.....BUT the reaction to our victory in the APT case has really flushed them out, removed even the tiniest bit of doubt as to who are the cartel mouthpieces.

The single page conclusions of the Premier League behaviour towards us is crystal clear... unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable. And they're debating if that's a comprehensive finding in our favour....

 

[Silva61]

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.

This prick is starting to realise the PL are going to lose, so now talks about going back to having jumpers for goal posts.

 

[Greenandblue]

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.

Delaney says:

" There is simply exasperation at the manner that the club have gone against the very idea of the Premier League. Rivals are furious that City’s owners bought into the competition in the knowledge of what it was, aware of the rules"

But Miguel top tier football in England is controlled by the Premier League, if City wanted to participate, what choice did they have but to agree the Cartel rules? Which were then changed "by the majority' to be deliberately stacked against them.

Delaney continues;

"City are instead the first to take a case of this nature, and decide that they don’t need the rules to apply to them."

No Miguel, we have taken the case to prove that the rules as being applied against us were unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. And we proved that, irrefutably. A word you'll hopefully hear again very soon with regard to the 115 BS.

 

[Lord Blue]

The bit i can't fathom is related to Roman Abramovich.
When he bought Chelsea they had more money than you would ever spend on football.
He could spend literally whatever he wanted.
And to be fair, he did.
As i remember it, the media, by and large, loved the Chelsea story.
Football didn't bring in rules to target Chelsea (as far as i'm aware).
Football didn't end.
So why is City's wealth being treated so differently to Chelsea's wealth.

City aren't going to spend ridiculous amounts.
We don't. Just look at the net spend table over the last 10 years.
Pretty sure Newcastle won't either (a splurge to get their act together sure but so what).

ps. For any lurking Chelsea fans, I have no problem at all with the Chelsea money story.

 

[adrianr]

Always impressed how many of these club executives, supposedly so unhappy with City trying to take over the league, are never willing to put their name to it. "One board member said", "One club executive implied"..

The attempt to create a narrative that the whole league is against us on this when it's most likely just the usual Arsenal/Liverpool/rag executives briefing against us is comical.