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

[remember arthur mann]

A banner needs making ....

'Unlawful
Unfair
Discriminatory'

Who is the banner man?

 

[Vic]

Depends whether identified as APT in accounts.

I don't think any charges relate to the APT Rules. All PSR charges predate the APT Rules, so it's whether the Tribunal ruling of unfair rules (deliberately unfair) taints the origin of the PSR (to target City).

 

[cheekybids]

What do the BBC mean by "partly unlawful." Nothing can be "partly unlawful."

Is that like burglary but not robbing from every room?

 

[OntarioBlue]

It wasn’t KP that started the petition, he’s only forwarded to a wider audience I get the impression that you’d have also been blaming KP for not forwarding it?

I’m afraid you get the wrong impression.

It doesn’t matter whether he started it or not. The email from Mr Parker clearly shows he supports the petition (unless I’ve misinterpreted the words “let’s show our support by clicking and sharing”). My question is why he is getting involved in this ?

 

[Vic]

Interesting....

See yesterday's posts. They set out to do it knowing it was anti-competitive (i.e. to the advantage of some clubs). In other words, cheating.

 

[cheekybids]

I disagree.
He loves City.

He certainly does & I think he became a top bert but that’s as much about fighting against the corruption.

 

[Grassland Blue]

Those clubs which we believe comprise the cartel have always had a problem with money which isn't theirs. It was Walker's Blackburn which first made me aware of this. Blackburn had no right to win the title because Walker had simply bought it (despite Ferguson's lavish spending of their own sugar daddies' money between 1986 and 1993 to win it) and they had no history and tradition (despite le Saux's reminder that Blackburn had won the cup 3 times before Manchester United existed) but Walker's wealth was never enough to threaten the red tops in the long term. Abramovitch posed a threat of an altogether more serious order. Here was a fabulously wealthy owner, a real threat of inexhaustible wealth, a threat for all the ages who took no time at all to win the title and then to win it again. Again Chelsea were an interloper, a team of mercenaries only able to compete because of their owner's, an oligarch's blood money. I don't remember any anti-semitism in the criticism but it was certainly Abramovitch who put the fear of god up UEFA. Then along came Sheikh Mansour. His personal wealth dwarfed that of Abramovitch and this hinted at the complete end to the domination of English football which the redtops had enjoyed since the early '90s. And he was also a businessman of global importance with a reach which dwarfed that of any other club (or cartel of clubs).His aim was to use investment to build the club up to its former greatness and to use the club to regenerate an areaof the city which was massively in need of it and to provide opportunities for young peopla which had not existed for years. I think we'll find many statements in the media which are arguably racist which attack City and its "dirty oil money" but these are in the media and I think the PL and other club officials - whether they are racist or not - have not attacked our owners on racial grounds. It is the "oil money" which is "dirty! The cartel resent City's wealth and potential, the mighty dollar. Something had to be done! The trouble is that City are just better at everything than the cartel and in their desperation the measures adopted to "deal with City" have strayed way over the border into unlawfulness - and City know this. So, the media can fume, PL chairman can rally round Masters (if they really wish to) but it has gone way beyond such posturing. The law will decide and City know that.

Brilliantly put.

Cap doffed.

 

[Vic]

I'd like the description 'DISCRIMINATORY included.....spelt ....RACIST.

The Tribunal rejected that. Just because the witness only mentioned Gulf states clubs doesn't mean he meant only Gulf states clubs.

 

[Stoned Rose]

At least that article is honest enough to say:

"Clubs who gave evidence on the Premier League’s behalf in the hearing that took place in June were said to be deeply concerned by what they view as City’s aggressive approach."

So that's the three from the red cartel, Spurs, West Ham and, possibly, Brighton. Hardly as described in other articles.

Challenging unlawful cartel based rules is aggressive?

Ffs.

 

[OntarioBlue]

Brilliantly put.

Cap doffed.

Or as the BBC wrote this morning with regard to the England Test win “Cap doughed”

And these are the “journalists” stirring up the shit against us.