The Everton IC was specifically criticised in the Appeal for delving more deeply than it was asked into some of Everton's dealings - they found a breach of good faith but then the Appeal said that this was wrong because the PL didn't charge Everton with that or plead it in the case. So yes, they will try and focus on the parties' respective cases albeit with asking questions and probing those positions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
And that is exactly what is wrong with the structure of the PL. The PL should be proposing rules that are for the benefit of the league as a whole, not just any old rule stupid rule that 14 myopic clubs will vote for.
You can be sure Masters is talking to the legal people from Liverpool, Arsenal and United to decide what to do next. The ****.
And on a whim a threat they email usual few clubs to have a meeting to vote on a new rule to stop Newcastle in 2021 then in 2024! They've done this for so long they think it's fine! Gill must of changed the ffp rules 3/4 times in the first 6 years of ffp all to negate us and in some cases to help his team.
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
To be fair he did bring his crayons and colouring book to the meeting.Primary teacher ?
If true they should have no trouble explaining things, even to Masters .
It would be great to get you both on a podcast or YouTube video. Possibly with one or two others from this parish. Any chance?Maybe, but I’d have thought even a half hearted challenge raises serious questions where the evidence is as flimsy as that!
Edit. You and slbsn.
If the law was that easy, the PL wouldn't have got it wrong. And their "practising" lawyers would have told them to save their money and give in.The old adage of “those who cannot do, teach” is often true, particularly where commercial and legal matters are concerned.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
As if this bellend or anyone at the Premier League is going to get the 115 on us. Not a fuckin chance.
The way they've handled this shitshow goes to show you they haven't got a scoobies what they are doing.
Masters has committed professional suicide.
The way they've handled this shitshow goes to show you they haven't got a scoobies what they are doing.
Masters has committed professional suicide.
With gdm as the JudgeIt would be great to get you both on a podcast or YouTube video. Possibly with one or two others from this parish. Any chance?
Edit. You and slbsn.
The Lightbowne Cowboy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 5,567
- Team supported
- City
Ole Mr 4th choice as I call him.As if this bellend or anyone at the Premier League is going to get the 115 on us. Not a fuckin chance.
The way they've handled this shitshow goes to show you they haven't got a scoobies what they are doing.
Masters has committed professional suicide.
Nobody is proposing outlawing loans so I don't think the Portsmouth example is key. And whether the loans would have been called in or not, Portsmouth would've been bust very quickly without shareholder support regardless of the loans. The action of calling the loan may have triggered it (to be honest not sure if that is the case or not without checking but I'd guess HMRC really triggered the collapse) but it will always be a matter of time if the owners stop funding a club like Portsmouth.Except that calling in shareholders loans was precisely what fucked Portsmouth. Which according to the PL was what motivated the changes in the first place.
So is it not that much of an issue after all?
And if you’re right that it’s not that much of an issue have you applied your mind to (a) why they bothered changing the rules in the first place and (b) why they tried to exempt shareholder loans from the regulations?
And I would say they resisted including loans because it wasn't a meaningful advantage and helped with admin so nobody was particularly bothered Inc City. But when City needed the argument, they dusted it down and successfully ran it at the Tribunal.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Portsmouth went into administration in early 2012. And we still don't have any rules about debt or shareholder loans in PSR. It's really hard to buy the argument that the amended rules had anything to do with Portsmouth therefore.Except that calling in shareholders loans was precisely what fucked Portsmouth. Which according to the PL was what motivated the changes in the first place.
So is it not that much of an issue after all?
And if you’re right that it’s not that much of an issue have you applied your mind to (a) why they bothered changing the rules in the first place and (b) why they tried to exempt shareholder loans from the regulations?
The PL seem to have had quite an easy ride over the issue of why they introduced the original APT rules when they did, so soon after the Newcastle takeover, while simultaneously claiming this was a reaction to something that happened nearly 10 years earlier. It's disappointing that neither our legal team, nor the tribunal members raised this.
Also why they seem to have prima facie accepted the explanation of the email sent from (let's hazard a guess) Daniel Levy referring to 'Gulf states' but where verbal evidence was given that this was effectively not specifically aimed at Gulf states but was just an example.