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

halfcenturyup said:
Yes :)
Click to expand...
Bear in mind I am replying to posts from a few hours ago and more on this has been said since.

I believe you. Any other poster claiming the same, I probably wouldn't so readily. It is at odds with how the various articles are reporting it and the language used. And as such with what makes sense to me. Just takes a bit to sieve through.
 
Last edited:
flb said:
What about a club that gets taken over? like Newcastle, who are finding out the hard way that these "rules" are stunting their business plans, ill bet if they knew how things have turned out they'd have kept their money in their pockets and stayed well clear.
Click to expand...

You'd imagine they'll be our witness in this case. When Newcastle we're taken over there was a temporary block on sponsorships from related parties which 18 clubs backed, we abstained from and Newcastle obviously voted against it. Then when these rules were introduced 14 clubs voted for them, we abstained and so you have 5 clubs including Newcastle who weren't supportive of the position.

The Saudi's have stayed under the radar and done a fantastic job of playing ball for PR. They don't get much grief at all and are working to the rules. It's a shame we haven't managed to convince them to go further and put their name to the legal action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flb
It's hard to keep pace with this thread so I apologise if the information I ask for has been posted. I have read the Times article (thanks to PB) in which it defines an "associated party transaction" as a sponsorship deal between a club and a company to which the club's owners are linked. This seems vague in the extreme and very similar to a related party transaction. Could anyone provide a definition of an ATP as it is defined in the PL rules because my understanding is that City's objections are that the PL definition is actually very specific in the area it is concerned with and , therefore, clearly discriminatory.

I believe that City may also object to being told how much it can "charge" for such deals and I suspect companies will also object to limits on their commercial freedom but I am alarmed at what I see as yet another example of the curse that is affecting political life in the UK. Groups are victimised for reasons of colour, race, religion over many years. Then we get an "outrage" such as City spending billions and so something "has to be done" and the reaction from the persecuted is treated to a pack of lies and misrepresentation from a pack of the usual press hounds so that opinion is prepared for disgraceful attitudes to be normalised and outrageous measures accepted. Trump is a master of this approach and many of the Americans involved in club ownership are supporters of Trump .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.