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

BerkshireBlue said:
Plus he's coming from the point of view of it being unfair for the clubs with loans rather than the angle of it being unfair for clubs without loans. You simply cant have both which is why it's going to problematic to pass any rule changes through
Click to expand...
The counter factual is almost certainly a debt for equity conversion which means nobody was disadvantaged. So I don't agree there is any argument for historic unfairness that should be remedied by historic recalculation of T-2 and T-1. As I say, either way, it is obvious that any IC would give full mitigation for it anyway.
 
flb said:
And whilst I’m at it ! Does anyone think in ten years time we will have a single City player working for Sky about the “good old days?” . I’ll bet not , no doubt they will still have 60 year old Neville and Spitty talking about the 80’s and 90’s , maybe with an 80 year old Graham Souness waffling on about how good Emlyn Hughes was.
Click to expand...
Souness retired a while back.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I wasn't suggesting there was a legal basis to challenge them but we could have simply asked Herbert how the rules would have prevented Portsmouth's administration, or the very real possibility that we could have gone under in 2008.

Show our aggregated net loss over the appropriate three-year period (2006-2008) and that we were well within the PSR maximum allowable loss. The unadjusted aggregate net losses were £24.4m and accumulated depreciation was £8.4m. So even before deducting other allowable expenses (e.g. expenditure on youth development), we're only showing a loss of £16m over those three years.

If I remember rightly, it was mid-June 2008 when Ernst & Young were in & we were talking to David Bernstein about a plan to buy the club following the seemingly inevitable administration. Then ask him how these particular rules, whereby we would have easily passed PSR while simultaneously going into administration, could be seen as effective under those circumstances.

I suspect that he's have had to answer "They wouldn't", thereby completely undermining the whole credibility of his testimony.

I'm very nervous, as a non-expert, about preaching to an expert in courtroom procedure, but but if someone came out with a statement that, if proven to be false or substantially misleading would undermine the reliability of their testimony, and potentially their whole case, surely you'd take that opportunity to discredit them?

Herbert also talked about the PL having considered introducing APTs for a while, but there was no evidence of that until after the Newcastle takeover. Again, challenging his evidence on the reason for PSR, helps undermine his evidence in that. And didn't he also give the evidence about 'Gulf States' not really meaning 'Gulf States'?

Yet the tribunal found him a compelling witness. I doubt they'd have taken that view if we'd have shown early on he was talking shit.
Click to expand...
The allowable allowance is £15 million over a 3 year period the £105million comes into play when additional and allowable monies are injected.

So if your numbers are right £16 million would mean albeit a futile argument re PSR that City would have failed unless extra of course extra monies were introduced from the owners which would then possibly have meant that cash flow wouldn’t have been an issue
 
flb said:
And you know what mate sadly , when Pep does leave and the invevitable drop off happens , we won’t be talked about as being the best team this country has ever seen - you only have to look at the re-runs of Uniteds treble , Ferguson yada yada yada. It will virtually like we have never existed. We, as a club and team won’t be constantly shown repeats of how outstanding and utterly brilliant we were for a ten year period.
As you say , jealous self righteous cunts.
Click to expand...

A lot the records Pep broke were Chelsea records & you hear little about that period.
 
I'm Blue said:
Not sure if already posted…
www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League clubs clash in 'feisty' emergency meeting

MIKE KEEGAN: No timeline was given to Premier League clubs on a resolution to their legal war with Manchester City over sponsorship rules at a 'feisty' emergency meeting of clubs this afternoon.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Click to expand...

Very impressive. I mean from the point I’ve sat in meetings for hours to achieve nothing but this was wrapped up without achieving anything in 1 hour.

What is the current status? Do we have any rules?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.