the blue panther
Well-Known Member
"Laddish" is a weird adjective to use though, if applied to either Roan or Stone. Neither is laddish, or manly in the way they look or sound - despite Roan's beard.
"Cuntish" is more suitable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
"Cuntish" is more suitable.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,796
Fair enough. I just get a bit tired reading in the press how City voted in favour of excluding loans from APT and then changed tack, like it's some sort of gotcha. Then you get fans of other clubs believing it and repeating it on here. It's a lazy interpretation and, more to the point, it's wrong. The club never voted for any element of APT in a statutory vote, ever.
But as you say, we don't know why the CFO voted in a single subcommittee to proceed with recommendations which excluded loans. There could be many reasons, but I doubt the real reason is interesting at all.
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a gotcha at all. Just to me I think at the time, we probably thought there were other aspects of it more likely to be considered unlawful. It’s not as if we didn’t challenge it on several avenues.
The one bit I don’t get is if excluding shareholder loans is unlawful for APT, surely the same could be said for considering them RPTs, which could have a huge consequence.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I’m not sure a Labour government would want to help the Telegraph as much as the last one.I wouldn't get too carried away with what the government may do to ensure that AD isn't upset by what the PL is doing.
Our owner funded RedbirdIMI to purchase The Telegraph and The Spectator for 600 mill with Redbird actually running the titles. The last government (possibly more disposed to AD than the current one) rushed a law through to prevent our owner even being a passive partner. They have had to sell the Spectator and are in the process of selling the Telegraph to get as much of their money back as possible. It actually looks like they will get most or all of it back contrary to the market expectations.
You have to say that this was an extremely unfriendly act by the UK government but there you go. Don't expect anything helpful regarding football issues.
flb
Well-Known Member
No United in that list , abstaining no doubt , but I’m sure SJ can see the benefits of related party sponsorships down the line ….As fingered by Martin Samuel. Not sure if Ingo Bank is a real person or some Emirati financial institution :)
View attachment 134708
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between Roan and the online team. But it is all very male dominated."Laddish" is a weird adjective to use though, if applied to either Roan or Stone. Neither is laddish, or manly in the way they look or sound - despite Roan's beard.
"Cuntish" is more suitable.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
He’s a fucking disgrace.Roan has still not even reported the Judges’ summary.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,796
We didn’t vote for the exemption. Fake news!
We voted for the recommendation to be implemented that excluded them and then didn’t vote for the overall rules to be implemented. If we’d have thought at the time the principle of it was unlawful, we’d have surely abstained on voting for the recommendations.
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,002
- Team supported
- Manchester City
It was partly about the Telegraph but more about foreign ownership of the media generally.I’m not sure a Labour government would want to help the Telegraph as much as the last one.
Labour will be more detached from Gulf states as their trans policies etc don't match up :)
Basically, no UK government, whatever political hue, is going to lean on the PL in order to appease our owner / Abu Dhabi.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,431
Yeah I’m not saying it’s a gotcha at all. Just to me I think at the time, we probably thought there were other aspects of it more likely to be considered unlawful. It’s not as if we didn’t challenge it on several avenues.
The one bit I don’t get is if excluding shareholder loans is unlawful for APT, surely the same could be said for considering them RPTs, which could have a huge consequence.
Huge consequences, yes. If, and it's still an if, of course, APT really is null and void since inception, then FFP/PSR will also, presumably, if challenged, be null and void for the same reasons. Can you imagine what a mess that would cause? Huge bargaining chip for the club, or any other club for that matter ....
Seemed to me that is what Samuel was hinting at.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,796
Huge consequences, yes. If, and it's still an if, of course, APT really is null and void since inception, then FFP/PSR will also, presumably, if challenged, be null and void for the same reasons. Can you imagine what a mess that would cause? Huge bargaining chip for the club, or any other club for that matter ....
Seemed to me that is what Samuel was hinting at.
Surprised no one has done that challenge already. Must be a few considering it now!