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

[DiscoSteve]

are

So you're saying he's got an acute case of obtuseness?

are you a maths teacher? complete with leather patches on your suit jacket elbows?

 

[tweety]

There's an article in the Telegraph saying that a new meeting has been arranged for Tuesday, it doesn't say which one!

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

So you're saying he's got an acute case of obtuseness?

Definitely got something but the prognosis is difficult.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

There's an article in the Telegraph saying that a new meeting has been arranged for Tuesday, it doesn't say which one!

No doubt whichever is the most helpful for the gooner shithouses to try and influence.

Masters will be told in due course when his input is needed next.

 

[MAG]

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

and arsenal management

 

[kaz7]

Hopfully get some early leaks from the meeting , are we invited ? If so take pannek and put the shits up them

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The premier league either brought in ATP for sinister reasons or to stop people circumventing PSR that’s not the same as the rules being so linked as to me the same or so similar that one being unlawful that the other is especially when in theory ATP can be re worked

The judgement in our case seems quite clear that the PL brought in the APT rules because the cartel were claiming we were ignoring the rules on declaring related party transactions. The only problem with that, as has been said on here recently, is that there is no interpretation of the relevant accounting standard where Etihad is a related party.

 

[KS55]

There's an article in the Telegraph saying that a new meeting has been arranged for Tuesday, it doesn't say which one!

Does that paper still take the view that we LOST the case, even though the APT rules were declared unlawful?

 

[KS55]

The judgement in our case seems quite clear that the PL brought in the APT rules because the cartel were claiming we were ignoring the rules on declaring related party transactions. The only problem with that, as has been said on here recently, is that there is no interpretation of the relevant accounting standard where Etihad is a related party.

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.