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
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
I wasn't saying it was. I was emphasising how it echoed the situation we were in 15 years ago.This has nothing to do with FFP or UEFA or things 15 years ago.
This is about the rules voted on after the Saudi takeover of Newcastle.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,564
Probably why Masters went to the Emirates, too.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, deapite how it might seem, this actually happened in February, not now. What the context and mood was then, hard to remember.
Tricky_Trev
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 32,343
Says it all for me when it says “PL clubs fear…” Fear what? To me it’s another example of us already being treated as guilty. They should be waiting for the outcome, not panicking that the outcome might not be what they’ve already decided it is.
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.
Important not to mix the two up, which The Times does.
Right - but those rules came in 3 years ago (Nov 2021) and we did nothing until the 2 parties are in a huge, other, legal battle. I think people arguing the 2 are unrelated are being very naive.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
glass half empty. I’m thinking the case of the 115 charges ain’t going well at all and city are trying to sling some mud about the place. If it was going well why would we rock the boat.
Because if that battle is won, we’re in a fucking strong position to win this one and knock these cunts spark out.
Or they say rules apply equally across the boardIt's one of those things where even if you win you're the bad guy.
People think related companies should pay fair sponsorships, that's clearly the majority opinion. They don't really care if the process by which the PL achieves that stands up to english law, they just want the end result.
So the absolute best case scenario is we win, the PL says "sorry we tried to bring in rules but City stopped it" and then it's our fault when Aramco pay Newcastle £350m/year.
Or we win, and then we use that judgment as a weapon against the PL. "Lets see what else we can dismantle" etc. or even because it's in 2 parts, we could win and then use the upcoming award of damages as a weapon. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.
feedmpenzaandhewillscore
Well-Known Member
Even though 115 and now this case are separate there are some similar things standing out. The Premier League wants to run things like a private members club outside English law, English law will probably applied to 115 charges making it a civil matter and time bar the majority of it. They seem to want to ignore what you can and can’t do lawfully to keep their gravy train running for their preferred members.