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

[bobbyowenquiff]

Tolmie has just alluded to this on Twitter, but wonder whether the announcement from DP ports in the last couple of days has anything to do with what is going on. Probably not but interesting all the same.

DP World shelves £1bn UK investment pledge ahead of summit

Ministerial blame game erupts after transport secretary dubbed ferry company a ‘cowboy operator’

www.ft.com

It certainly makes the Government jumpy. We have huge ongoing deals with Saudi and other Gulf partners.

 

[KS55]

He's having a 'biggest imbecile' competition with Delaney

It’s just blatant. City issue a letter, oh big bad bully. PL change course and take their time as City urged……..nothing from the shits, just tumbleweed. The readers of so many papers are just not important to these arses and are deliberately misinformed by them to punt their agenda.

 

[JASR]

There is always a tipping point with these sort of stories. The press like to end up on the winning side. The Mail and Times know Masters is doomed.

I think I sense a disturbance in the force, as…

… becomes the headline thought for United fans.

 

[Norbiton]

Nothing that I can see in The Guardian yet on the latest developments. Perhaps Barney has been too busy helping Dan with his mental gymnastics to get round to writing anything of his own?

He was writing some bollocks about an extraordinary Test Match proving that test cricket was doomed

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

As fingered by Martin Samuel. Not sure if Ingo Bank is a real person or some Emirati financial institution :)

View attachment 134708

Organised and clear

 

[meltonblue]

Not looking for an argument but voting for recommendations for a proposed rule change is very different from voting for the final proposal. A lot can and presumably did happen between the two votes, including two more FCAG meetings. Differing legal opinions being one, I imagine.

At no point did the club as a member shareholder vote to exclude shareholder loans from the APT rules. I can't see how that is debatable.

Absolutely, your first sentence doesn’t detract from my point. We didn’t vote for the APT rules as a whole, we did vote to support the recommendations. It’s pretty clear that that either wasn’t our main reason for thinking the APT rules were unlawful at the time or we were playing an incredibly insightful long game even then.

 

[Protein Junkie]

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.

I always enjoy reading your posts Bobby.
I do start to wonder if some elements of the press feel there might just be a much bigger scandal about to erupt than the ever diminishing 115 fantasy ?

 

[meltonblue]

Perhaps we were at that time just gathering evidence and have eventually been able to use it effectively at the tribunal.

I imagine so.

 

[Grassland Blue]

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.

Like the lack of a question mark at the end of your piece......

 

[halfcenturyup]

Concerning Mancini, I think there was an obligation, at the time, to show all Manager remuneration on the books. It predated FFP. They will have to show his consultancy contract with the Abu Dhabi club was a sham - can’t see this going anywhere tbh.

Nope. The "all manager remuneration" rule came in later. 2013/14 I think. The only manager remuneration rules when Mancini was at City was that he must have a contract, and that that contract must include two (iirc) standard clauses. Pretty hard to imagine we didn't comply with those.

But yes, you are right, they have to show that the AJ contract was a sham then they can claim to adjust the accounts for it, and say the amounts should have been included in a contract with the club. Pretty difficult I would think as, as has been pointed out, there was no FFP reason to do that at the time (because it didn't exist then).