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

[TheThirdDeano]

On what harebrained ground do these lunatics imagine clubs can sue city?

 

[thismeansfour]

I cant be the only one who is pissed off at Newcastles stance on this, it seems to me that it was the amendments aimed to stop Newcastle that pushed us to go down the legal route. Not to say that we shouldnt have pushed it but why not Newcastle.

What is Newcastle stance? It impacts us so we challenged it, yes Newcastle might have been able to as well. Remember they are finding their feet still, it has taken us over 10 years to say enough is enough.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Came across this experiment. It’s called the werewolf game. Created by a Russian 1986.

The Werewolves win if they achieve parity, or an equal number of remaining Werewolves and Villagers. The Villagers win if they are able to kill all of the Werewolves.

Dimitry Davidoff wanted to show that an informed minority (the werewolves/city fans) when pitted against an uninformed majority (the villagers/cartel/media) will usually win.

The game has two alternating phases: first, a night-phase, during which those with night-killing-powers may covertly kill other players, and second, a day-phase, in which all surviving players debate and vote to eliminate a suspect. The game continues until a faction achieves its win-condition; for the village, this usually means eliminating the evil minority, while for the minority, this usually means reaching numerical parity with the village and eliminating any rival evil groups.

115 is the end game for the red cartel.

Richard Keys likes this.

 

[manimanc]

Extra: as per slbsn it’s just posturing by the media for the clubs anyway, as a club cannot Sue another one, as per the PL’a own rules (ironic).

Ah yes, Martin Ziegler, an absolute whopper who is way out of his depth with stuff like this.

Why is it all these clickbaiters have faces you could punch all day long!

Next.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

On what harebrained ground do these lunatics imagine clubs can sue city?

Didn’t Sheff Utd sue West Ham successfully after the Mascherano/Tevez affair? I know it’s not exactly the same but there are similarities.

I still think it would be next to impossible to actually win a case against City, who could likely drag it out a decade or more

 

[JASR]

Came across this experiment. It’s called the werewolf game. Created by a Russian 1986.

The Werewolves win if they achieve parity, or an equal number of remaining Werewolves and Villagers. The Villagers win if they are able to kill all of the Werewolves.

Dimitry Davidoff wanted to show that an informed minority (the werewolves/city fans) when pitted against an uninformed majority (the villagers/cartel/media) will usually win.

The game has two alternating phases: first, a night-phase, during which those with night-killing-powers may covertly kill other players, and second, a day-phase, in which all surviving players debate and vote to eliminate a suspect. The game continues until a faction achieves its win-condition; for the village, this usually means eliminating the evil minority, while for the minority, this usually means reaching numerical parity with the village and eliminating any rival evil groups.

115 is the end game for the red cartel.

You can play this as a forum game. The caf used to run them for awhile.
With the amount of wordsmiths, lawyers, lunatics, financial experts, perverts and combinations of all of them , it could be a fun run… takes effort and time though. Would need a mod to run it - needs polls, poster thread limitations etc.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game) for more info as per wolfs post.

 

[houraisen]

 

[invisibleandalone]

But will their fans be happy with that? I suppose the answer is yes as they've been doing just that for the last 20 years without any fuss.

Try 60 years !!!!

 

[Vic]

Not a chance it would get to a situation where the case is discontinued. This will play out 100%, it was said all along that the recent case has nothing to do with 115, whichever way that goes. We can't think because we won (even though the prem doesn't think they lost) that they will then buckle?

It must be part of our defence that rules we are alleged to have broken were created to ensure we broke them. I'm not sure how an independent panel would regard that if we had technically been in breach.

The analogy would be a magistrate asked to give judgment against a motorist with a parking ticket after the council had put yellow lines under his parked car

 

[thismeansfour]

It must be part of our defence that rules we are alleged to have broken were created to ensure we broke them. I'm not sure how an independent panel would regard that if we had technically been in breach.

The analogy would be a magistrate asked to give judgment against a motorist with a parking ticket after the council had put yellow lines under his parked car

I don't think that will be enough though, as our agreement isn't about why the rules are there, it is simply we haven't broken the rules? We can put it forward and it wouldn't do any harm winning this recent case but I don't think much of it will link. Had we lost this recent case would we be pessimistic with the 115?