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

[cheekybids]

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.

They deserve it, it would of only been wasted on stadium infrastructure & roofing.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

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.

Enjoy and agree with your posts @StillBuesinceHydeRoad but could you please break the post down for ease of reading ?

My brain is geriatric and can only accept bite-sized chunks of info.

 

[cheekybids]

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.

Rewards alter behaviour so if she knows rejecting City's sponsors will be well received & rewarded she’ll do it. It’s corruption, just not in the form of brown envelopes.

She’s a ****!

 

[the blue panther]

Cuntish is a beautiful word and should, no doubt, have a higher prominence in the English language. However, your use of that word, in this particular context is, unfortunately, inaccurate.
The suffix ‘ish’ is used when describing a quality or, indeed, a flaw, that approximates to that description but may involve, some redeeming qualities.
The 2 aforementioned are, undoubtedly, cunts of the first order, therefore the ‘ish’ is rendered unnecessary. ;-)

I deemed "cuntish" more appropriate an adjective than "laddish" as used in the post by BobbyOwen'squiff originally, but I'm happy to bow to your preference as you make your point so eloquently.
I concur wholeheartedly that the 2 males I alluded to are indeed cunts, and would venture so far as to say that they have been allowed to spread the BBC's brand of cuntishness unreasonably, and without restraint or proper challenge, for far too long.

 

[Vic]

By the way, she is a non-executive director of the PL. I am not sure what she is doing making executive decisions?

Non-exec just means not an employee. Non-execs vote for board decisions but executive directors carry out board decisions.

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.

She's had a senior role at Sky and is still a non-exec at BBC Commercial. I can't find a remuneration report for the PL but she got £140,000 pa from Nationwide before she stepped down from its board last year.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Mate most owners don’t want to invest in a big way. Wherever they are in the food chain they don’t want sink lower. Investing owners coming in below threaten that. Hence the majority in bed with the cartel simples.

I find this puzzling. If most owners don't want to invest in a big way, why are they so free with "interest free" (ie often not repayable) loans. These are little more than disguised owner investment.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

That's exactly what I was thinking. When they voted on the adoption of APTs, a purely cartel created legal mythology, what are those non cartel clubs thinking ?
What do they want for themselves?, what do the cartel promise them ?. They can't be that intellectually lacking to just believe the cartel decree "stop City FFS".
For example, West Ham why would they deny themselves a class of potential sponsorship that could transform them like us ? would it be the worst thing in the world to see the Hammers as champions of England. But as sure as God made little green apples that will never happen with the cartel owning the PL.

Aside: On the subject of 'arms length Fair Market Values' who the feck on planet earth could justify paying Masters a salary of £1.8m per annum. What other organisation in the world would be prepared to pay that imbecile that amount ?

Somebody who wanted a hell of a lot of conformity, obediance and pliancy in return for primarily stopping the progress of Manchester City - now which members can you possibly think of who fit that description ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think someone posted earlier that Mai Fyfield is a non-executive director of the PL, so what was she doing spending hours valuing deals? Did she do this regularly for other clubs' deals or was it just the EAG deal? Non-execs sit on the board and exercise oversight of the executive, not roll their sleeves up and get dirty.

And looking at the PL board, there's another thing I noticed. Company boards should have a mixture of executives and non-executives. Back in the mid-2000's, when I got involved in setting up a Supporters Trust at City, one of our key campaigning points was that the board didn't meet good corporate governance standards.

The reason was that there was just one executive (CEO Alistair Mackintosh) and just a handful of non-execs (Chair John Wardle, Mark Boler, Dennis Tueart and Brian Bodek). And we were a quoted company at that time so should have had a better board composition.

The PL is a multi-billion pound organisation yet has a chair, three independent non-executives and a CEO, so exactly the same as City pre-Shinawatra. Where's the Finance Director or the Marketing Director? Corporate Governance guidelines require "an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors...such that no one individual dominates the board's decision making".

How the hell are the PL meeting this requirement?

There's also an existing requirement that if 20% of stakeholders vote against a resolution, the organisation should seek to find out why they did. This seems to imply that if 4 or more clubs vote against something, the PL has a responsibility to investigate and understand the reasons.

 

[johnny crossan]

You know what, I was lay here in the night, aching knee doing my brains in, and as usual on bluemoon to pass the time, and it started me thinking.......Anyway, that’s my musings on this Saturday morning, I’ll get back to feeling sorry for myself and wanting to saw my leg off, lol.

Gabapentin might help perhaps?

 

[meltonblue]

I don’t agree.

Liverpool have a good chance of winning the league,but they probably won’t.

If the opinion was that on balance the rules were probably lawful it would have said so. It wasn’t a foregone conclusion but that opinion is an absolute giveaway that the rules were considered to be more likely unlawful than not.

To put the same point another way The PL took a punt on the rules being lawful.

Yes I agree with your last sentence there :)