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

halfcenturyup said:
For the most serious allegations, the rules are filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around. If the club knowingly filed false accounts, it's difficult to argue that the club complied with those rules in good faith.
Click to expand...
But why would they if there were no rules to break at the time?
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The Times are leading the way on this story. As they done pretty much since day one. But they seem to have changed their editorial position to be more sympathetic to City. Perhaps City's comms team are being more proactive. It's just speculation from me but I wonder if The Times team know what is in the emails between some Club Directors and the PL. Tolmie has suggested those emails are damaging to the PL's 115 case. Perhaps the Times (and the Mail) want to end up on the winning side. It certainly looks like they are going after Masters.
Click to expand...
The Times had a rethink once Martin Samuel joined them. He has obviously persuaded Lawton and others to be more sceptical of the PL.
Up till then, arses like Ziegler held sway, but his star has waned.
Henry Winter now sells burgers.
 
Gingers Dad said:
But why would they if there were no rules to break at the time?
Click to expand...

You are talking about FFP? The years 2009/10 to 2014/15 aren't about breaching FFP, they are about filing false accounts in bad faith. The years after 2014/15 (once FFP was effective) are about filing false accounts in bad faith AND failing FFP if the accounts were corrected (amongst other things).

The rules for filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around.
 
I remember seeing an interview once with 2 people in the street. And a passerby walks through the interview. The interviewer starts complaining about being interrupted, the interviewee stop the interview and says "don't confuse incompetence for malice".
After having a few days to soak all this in and trying to apply some critical thinking. It does make me wonder if this is just a case of incompetence in the offset and arse covering thereafter.
Obviously the blue in me thinks it's a red cartel led agenda. But with regards to the APT case the rules being implemented where born out of outside pressure and then incompetently applied and arse covered going forward. And I think the 115 is no different and we know this by the initial charges being incorrect and all over the place. So again from the outside looking in. Could it just be as simple as incompetence.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Didn't the "judges" also say they found the omission of interest free loans from the owner not only to be intentional but also to be "akin to cartel price fixing". Acting is as a cartel is about as serious a violation of competition law as there is. To my mind the only course of action open to the PL is to end all the bluster, all the defiance, to ditch the cartel and begin serious negotiation with City, the other PL clubs and the tribunal to figure out some cost control measures which are fair to all and, above all else, lawful. If this is the first step it is to be commended, but there's a long way to go and much work to be done. It may mean that Masters has to have the balls to tel the cartel that they're on their own, if they can't compete that's tough but football is under a new, fairer regime. And there could be the problem of UEFA and there regulations which may/do have elements which are unlawful, but the PL has to conform to our law.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there can be any meaningful negotiations while Masters is there. He fixed his flag firmly to the cartel’s mast, even after the tribunal’s verdict. If he went, City and the PL could work it out in time.
 
johnnytapia said:
Aye. True. Was chatting with my dad tonight. He’s 86 and hasn’t been “online “ in his life. He lives in a world where “115” is the house down the road. Think I envy him.
Click to expand...
I once asked my elderly neighbour if he was still having sex at 86, he said "good Lord no, the woman at 88 has much bigger tits".

Apologies for nearly the oldest "joke" in existence.
 
marco said:
how anyone can suggest this has no bearing on the 115 couldnt be further from the truth, were dealing with incompitent fools who simply cant get anything right, even the members of the pannel must have raised eybrows tonight, my guess is Pannick is sat there this evening with a large glass of sherry pissing himself
Click to expand...
He drinks Haut Brion.
 
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.