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

[KS55]

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

He drinks Haut Brion.

 

[KS55]

tbf, most people who drink sherry piss themselves.

I like a good dry fino occasionally such as La Ina or Tio Pepe. Not pissed myself yet.

 

[cheekybids]

Thanks for that. Clear as always. And very long likewise :)

When you have time, do you think you can apply your mind to the evidence provided by the PL as to why the APT rules were necessary in the first place? I am struggling to see the logic in the tribunal's findings, based on the evidence presented, that the APT rules were necessary to ensure the proper functioning of PSR.

No problem if you have no time, or don't have the inclination. I wouldn't blame you, but maybe some others could help me out? Just an old accountant trying to understand how the arbitrators, in my mind at least, got it so badly wrong.

I don't see anything in the evidence presented that shows the ex-post review of transactions failed, and justifies a move to excessively complicated and onerous ex-ante rules. It just shows unsubstantiated fear from rival clubs that the existing rules may not be sufficient.

Maybe it's simply the case of City failing to prove they weren't necessary rather than the PL having to prove they were. But I may be biased. :)

I still find it odd the panel claim there was no agenda against the gulf owned clubs yet describe a massive agenda.

 

[KS55]

My mum and dad used to have two decanters in the lounge (I know!) and when they used to go out, when I was about 8, I’d take a swig of the sherry decanter, but sometimes I’d swig it from the wrong one by mistake, which was the whisky one!

Swigging whisky from the bottle at eight!

I take it you were a late starter.

 

[KS55]

He has been paid £1.8m a year and is in it up to his neck.

I wouldn’t pay him in washers.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I like a good dry fino occasionally such as La Ina or Tio Pepe. Not pissed myself yet.

Well done!

 

[cheekybids]

View attachment 134701

Once again, I find that the best analysis of any situation concerning City is on here, a humble football forum (provided you are happy to sift through it all). Pat yourselves on the back Bluemooners.

If it’s not dawned on these frauds now that just like the CAS case they’ve been made to look fools by the posters but more importantly City & their representatives then there is no fucking hope for them. They’d have been better saying City had got a result due to the expensive lawyers, something they always hint but the thick cunts went along with the story City were embarrassed.

 

[Keeper!]

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.

There can be no meaningful negotiations with any PL matter until the 115 decision is made and any other disputes that are on going.

Once all those are finished the rule book needs to be rewritten from the start to finish in a fair and open manner and done with lawyers to a proper standard.

 

[M18CTID]

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 think his point is not that we haven’t been charged with that - because we have - but why would City feel the need to file inaccurate accounts when there was no FFP in place. Just like why would City hide a couple of million quid a year of Mancini’s contract at a time when we’d just spent £17m on a crock from Blackburn, all that £17m went through the books, and we were posting losses north of £100m.

I guess what he, and I, are trying to say is that we know we’ve been charged with filing inaccurate accounts but it makes no logical sense to have done that.

 

[cheekybids]

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.

I don’t believe it’s that simple, editorial stance doesn’t change with evidence of rights or wrong it goes above that. Something has happened between City & the Times & Daily Mail to change the editorial stance.