Hey Masters, don’t Pannick.I dont understand it but get in .Mr Pannick in action again, about time we took on the prem and the yanks , the cunts have been going for us for years
Hey Masters, don’t Pannick.I dont understand it but get in .Mr Pannick in action again, about time we took on the prem and the yanks , the cunts have been going for us for years
It's absolutely about the alleged breaches against us. We are claiming that extant rules are illegal on the basis that they limit fair competition.
City's legal challenge to Premier League to begin on Monday
Manchester City’s legal case against the Premier League’s associated party transaction (APT) rules will begin on Monday, June 10. City are suing the league in an attempt to have the rules — which they claim are unlawful — abolished in a two-week private arbitration hearing. The Premier League’s...www.nytimes.com
West Ham...also a fan of the Arse
And there is another interesting bit, who are the so called independent company that vets the Sponsorship dealsJust asking a question regarding sponsorship and owner related companies.
Obviously our sponsorship is looked at and then decided if it fair market value by an independent company.
Am I right in saying that for example Emirates can sponsor arsenal for let's say 500 mil a year and this doesn't have to be looked at because Emirates don't not have anything to do with owning arsenal or are all sponsorship deals looked at by this independent company
Never mind all this talk of good guys and bad guys, its very hard to imagine that we're totally innocent of everything, to be perfectly honest.
So what's the end game here, if we do win the case and take the Premier League down as many City fans are calling
Fans are entitled to criticize the club, or at least ask questions of them or doubt them. In my opinion.
We've been defending them to the hilt for the last 8-10 years now in the face of accusation after accusation.
That's not me saying that I haven't been doing my best in defending my club the past 24 hours!
In lay mans terms, its quite hard to put a good argument favouring City in terms of yesterday's news.
We are allowed to stop and ask, why have we done this, it doesn't look good etc.
Got to say, to a layman (which I am) it seems that the APT rules are there for good reason and I can't see why, of all things, we are trying to pick those apart.
Personally, I'm sick of it all to my stomach. I just want to watch football and celebrate my team. This is really detracting from the joy of the sport.
I thought it was only me being an FOC(Funny old codger) who felt this way. For me just watching the football is all I want to do, politics and deviousness were things I dealt with in my 'previous life' now I just want to relax and enjoy the BEST TEAM IN THE LAND AND ALL THE WORLD.This is exactly how I feel as well. I have been a City fan for the best part of 60 years and all this “noise” is ruining my enjoyment of the game. I just want to watch my team play football. I am also struggling to understand why APT rules are a bad thing. I don’t really want to see a league where the team with the deepest pockets wins all the prizes.
He’s guessing a bit. The evidence is the thing and no-one has seen it yet. I assume he believes that such challenges are inherently difficult to win. Pannick, however, is not beyond stretching a point.It begs the question, if as Stefan said we are very unlikely to win this case, why have the club taken it on?
Yes,if you look at the clauses in the new rules (attachment on p147) Ratcliff and Ineos seem to fall squarely into a number of them.I'm not so sure Ric. Three different Ineos group companies are among Nice's biggest sponsors and surely Scruffy Jim will be wanting some significant Ineos sponsorship for the rags.