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

[waspish]

It depends who decides what is fair market value

Yep chelsea just got a sponser from related to them and it sailed through American fine city let's looks at it with fine toothbrush and then knock 30m of it! Dirty dirty tactics

 

[cheekybids]

How many charges have we laid against them & im assuming the media expect the prem to ge found guilty. No smoke without fire :)

 

[Stoned Rose]

Fucking hell. The stones on City.

 

[KS55]

It’s pretty hard to believe the club ignored/accepted the original related party rules for 11 years, then waited 3 years after the new ones were approved and then just happened by coincidence to decide to launch a lawsuit about it in the middle of the Premier League's biggest ever lawsuit.

The newish rules introduced the concept of “associated” as opposed to “related”.
The definition of related is given by IAS24, but associated definition is the PL’s own. It might be that the PL’s definition is what has sparked this. When I read the PL’s definition, it struck me that it could mean as little as “someone who does business in AbuDhabi.” That would clearly be wrong in principle and might explain City’s alleged losses.
Important not to mix the two up, which The Times does.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Here we go. City start legal action against PL

Man City launch unprecedented legal action against Premier League

Claim has plunged top flight into civil war and hearing on Monday could change competition for ever as Man City say they are victims of ‘tyranny of majority’ over 115 charges of breaching financial rules

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[waspish]

That's not right. 12 clubs have either committed to supporting City or defending the PL. The breakdown is not clear.

All Americans clubs owners said fcuk you

 

[Coatigan]

My gut reaction to this is that we’re not on very strong ground here and that we might lose this action.

If that happens, the whattaboutery around 115 will ramp up off the charts, despite the two cases having nothing to do with each other.

I largely agree. Think this, if of course there is any truth to how it is (selectively) presented, is challenging quite a few established principles, on top of just the rule change itself. Notably how the rules are brought about and voted on, and opening the door for financial loss law suits. Can't see it sticking. Can't see City being consciously frivolous either, so there a very interesting dynamic shift here.

Worth noting too, despite how it might seem, this actually happened in February, not now. What the context and mood was then, hard to remember.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Methinks we've just declared war.

About fucking time.

The narrative will no doubt be this is to deflect our guilt on the 115 charges etc.

 

[Manc in London]

All legitimate arguments where revenue and profit and sustainability are concerned.

Indeed. Imagine an organisation being told that they are restricted in bringing in money, in which some of this will be spent on women's football, community development, diversionary activities for youth, supporting better outcomes for people with a disability and so on. Maybe a restriction on spend for the men's team is more reasonable (it is unreasonable in my personal opinion) but ultimately this will could impact on City's spend in areas not related to men's football. I am sure there are some very smart barristers advising on this.

Maybe a bit of a powerplay going on here. It could be to bring back into focus the need for an independent regulator (goodness knows what is happening in relation to the regulator with a change in Govt likely) or maybe a more direct attack on the governance structure of the PL.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

RAWK have reopened their thread on us in light of today’s events. It was so obvious.