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

[halfcenturyup]

In the case of Everton they significantly benefited from the non inclusion of interest free loans from their owner ( not sure about Nottingham Forest)

Everton loans are probably for the new stadium, no?

 

[Asa's left peg]

I don't know if you agree, but to me director loans are a prime example of 'financial doping' ( that term is ridiculous in itself). Exactly what we have been accused of continually.

 

[Blue Mist]

In February 2024 at a meeting of all the Premier League clubs took place to vote on the amendments. At that meeting City stated they believed the amendments were illegal.
A sensible, financially competent organisation would have sat down with City and asked them why they believed that. Then, instead of taking a vote, would have asked their legal team for advice.
The Premier League didn't. Instead they voted on the amendments sending it on a very toxic and expensive collision course with one of its members. In doing so it risked damaging the PL brand around the world.
Me and you know why they took that course of action but none of the lick spittle press will ask them why did they do that and questioning if they, Masters et al are fit to run the PL.

 

[Gordyola]

Hey I am not disagreeing that it can’t be applied but a court of law hasn’t ruled

Sounds like you are
An arbitration court has ruled that they are unlawful in contravention of the competition law, since arbitration is a legal process conducted under Uk law it is, a "court of law"

 

[mancboy]

Hey I am not disagreeing that it can’t be applied but a court of law hasn’t ruled

by this logic, every single rule up to and including our 115 charges means absolutely sod all.

 

[Gordyola]

Everton loans are probably for the new stadium, no?

Didn't the panel rule that although Everton said the loans were for the new stadium it wasn't the case?

 

[hihosilva]

In February 2024 at a meeting of all the Premier League clubs took place to vote on the amendments. At that meeting City stated they believed the amendments were illegal.
A sensible, financially competent organisation would have sat down with City and asked them why they believed that. Then, instead of taking a vote, would have asked their legal team for advice.
The Premier League didn't. Instead they voted on the amendments sending it on a very toxic and expensive collision course with one of its members. In doing so it risked damaging the PL brand around the world.
Me and you know why they took that course of action but none of the lick spittle press will ask them why did they do that and questioning if they, Masters et al are fit to run the PL.

I'm sure if was one of the red cartel said that amendments were illegal the PL would have asked their legal team for advice. Now that City have won the case the PL are going to have to sit up & take notice.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Didn't the panel rule that although Everton said the loans were for the new stadium it wasn't the case?

I didn't pay much attention tbh :)

 

[Bluewonder]

In the case of Everton they significantly benefited from the non inclusion of interest free loans from their owner ( not sure about Nottingham Forest)

I appreciate that, I'm just saying that decisions were made based on a flawed system. So that needs to be corrected.

 

[JPAMCR]

I too take Zopiclone but my GP will only allow me 56 tablets per year, so I cut them in two and half a one knocks me out within half an hour and lasts up to 6/7 hours.

Got to be careful with ‘em. Very habit forming I believe. Works a treat though!