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

[M12Blue]

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 ?

Shit what have we done now?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

He’s a fucking disgrace.

How can you report on a legal hearing and not report what the Judges actually said in their summary? The PL lawyers winning some of the arguments is not the result of the case. As has been pointed out. If the PL have acted unlawfully, unfairly, and unreasonably that trumps everything. That’s how legal hearings work.

 

[give it to gordon]

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.

I'm not smart enough to understand all this law stuff. If another club challenged ffp and won would the 115 go away ?

 

[Grassland Blue]

Roan has still not even reported the Judges’ summary.

Because he knows that they were beaten (the PL) and so he is a loser by association.

 

[meltonblue]

I'm not smart enough to understand all this law stuff. If another club challenged ffp and won would the 115 go away ?

No, the elements related to ffp potentially could, but they’re a consequence of the main charges.

 

[KS55]

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.

This is not quite correct, as I understand it.
The first vote was a vote in principle on the agenda ie what would the rules cover.
When the detailed draft rules came up for a vote we abstained and warned that we had legal advice that suggested the draft rules were not legal.

 

[Gordyola]

The 'Haemeroid Clubs' want money afore success.

Success for them is getting the TV money, selling a homegrown player for profit & an occasional cup run.

It is Brighton & Brentfords declared m o.

Spurs are a shameful and shameless embarrassment who just want capital appreciation and dividends.

The cartel want minimum investment,maximum extraction and CL money.

None of them have City’s business plan, success, reinvestment strategy or global network.

None of them have City's debt free/loan free status.

They are desperate to stay in PL as they are anticipating the advancement of technology that will provide a real time virtual stadium experience, sat anywhere in the world as though you are in the stadium City are ahead already with their collaboration with Sony with their FavouriteSpace app being the first step The ww audience would generate massive income

 

[moomba]

When (if at all) can we expect to hear about the remaining part of the tribunal decision. Costs and compensation.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

The PL seems to be somewhat in disarray, not to say in rather a mess. Gone is the certainty that only a blue pencil is required to make the few slight adjustments required and it is recognised that time is "necessary" for the task, and the PL will take the time needed. Then proposals will be put to the FCAG and the PL will presumably vote on them. I suspect that since the PL's welcoming of the award as a victory and vindication of the regulations Masters has been told several times by the PL lawyers that the PL has dug itself into a hole and is still digging, that it has shown a readiness to ignore their advice on the law and that this has forced the legal team, eminent though they be, to defend a set of regulations clearly unlawful and unfair. The Leicester case had already shown the chaos and confusion around one set of regulations and the City case had shown that though the PL seemed to be reasonably good at knowing how to stitch up competitors for certain clubs, they had a tendency to be ignorant of what the law was regarding a whole range of transactions and competition. And over any new regulations is the brooding presence of Manchester City, certainly not blindfolded and waving the scales of justice with a nod and a wink at Mr Masters. Time to talk to clubs (the majority of whom seem to have had their fill of divisive rules and conflict), listen to the lawyers and do football a favour for once. They are supposed to be a governing body.

 

[meltonblue]

This is not quite correct, as I understand it.
The first vote was a vote in principle on the agenda ie what would the rules cover.
When the detailed draft rules came up for a vote we abstained and warned that we had legal advice that suggested the draft rules were not legal.

Not quite, we voted in favour of the recommendations being implemented, we then voted against the rules overall being implemented and reserved the right to challenge the legality of the rules and the FMV process. We didn’t abstain at any point.

Bear in mind it’s the principle itself of excluding shareholder loans that has been successfully considered unlawful.