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

KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grassland Blue said:
The proof of this can be seen in the Glazers ownership of the rags.
Click to expand...
What the Glazers have done at the scum is pure economic genius - at least in the short and medium term - and the long term really doesn't matter when you're taking money out of the club hand-over-fist for nearly 20 years.
 
DenisLawBackHeel74 said:
I’ve been away all week so only really coming back to this news.

What seems significant is the letter Cliff wrote to the league of which the BBC seem to have seen or had a copy and chosen to paraphrase rather than produce in full…and then explain away the choice parts they’ve shown….as a result adding adding considerable confusion on my part to what the letter is actually about (other than the APT rules are illegal in their entirety).

I’m sure it was discussed in detail on here so could someone point me to the relevant pages..
Click to expand...
Start at 901
 
Rory Bluelow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rules at the time stated that a club had to register the managers contract. We did this. Any outside renumeration is between Mancini and the separate contracting company. Mancini could get a job flipping burgers on his off days if he wanted to and that isn’t the club’s business other than being reassured it wouldn’t conflict with his managerial duties - albeit not a great look for us :)

It’s not as if this arrangement was a secret at the time or that anyone cared. It is being used to show that this is what we could be doing with respect to other players/managers and that our books need to be trawled for evidence of wrong doing.

The 115 is a massive fishing expedition in the hope of finding something/anything to stick on us.
 
As someone pointed out the relationship between the PL, SKY and the BBC is highly incestuous. You only have to look at Mai Fyfield who painted herself as some sort of executive hero because she worked soo incredibly hard while rejecting our Ethihad sponsorship. Just look at her CV she's been an executive director at all three of them, and at some stages in her career at the same time !. It's now an all out legal war of attrition, thats until someone like the Minster of Sport or IR steps in and drains that cesspit and swamp of corruption aka as the Premier League executive.
 
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.