cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,202
I think the next banner should include….
Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable.
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
I think the next banner should include….
Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
We need to save Masters! We seriously don't need some street smart corporate psychopath replacing him...Interesting that’s the first time we’ve heard some of the clubs are thinking it’s time Masters fucked off
Sky Sports "back pages" tonight, two Geordie Hacks, Hardy and Hope, (should have a hopeless in there) failing to condemn the APT rules and both pronouncing Masters as "Marsters" what a pair of wankers.
Didn't give any credence to what we've done to enhance Newcastle's future prospects by challenging the PL, no criticism of Masters and the red shirts plus Spuds, agenda is very clear.
Dodgy box btw, not giving them anymore of my cash.
Didn't give any credence to what we've done to enhance Newcastle's future prospects by challenging the PL, no criticism of Masters and the red shirts plus Spuds, agenda is very clear.
Dodgy box btw, not giving them anymore of my cash.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,657
Fwiw, my assessment of the situation after what (we think) we know happened in the meeting:
The tribunal gave the two parties time to agree what to do next.
The parties can't agree and so have asked the tribunal to determine the status of the APT rules and what should happen next.
No judgment yet, as far as we know, so the PL is sensibly getting on with amending the rules to make them lawful.
The big question, though, remains unanswered. Are the rules null and void as City suggest? Or just unlawful from the time of the initial judgment and therefore unenforceable until new lawful rules are passed, as the PL suggest.
It seems the PL now recognises that the PSR rules are also at risk of being unlawful for the inconsistency in treatment of shareholder loans and so are looking to change them, but the same big questions arise on that issue as well. Also, some clubs may not look favourably on having to capitalise loans or face having new loan agreements forced on them going forward with PSR consequences.
Still a bit of a mess.
I think.
Possibly :)
The tribunal gave the two parties time to agree what to do next.
The parties can't agree and so have asked the tribunal to determine the status of the APT rules and what should happen next.
No judgment yet, as far as we know, so the PL is sensibly getting on with amending the rules to make them lawful.
The big question, though, remains unanswered. Are the rules null and void as City suggest? Or just unlawful from the time of the initial judgment and therefore unenforceable until new lawful rules are passed, as the PL suggest.
It seems the PL now recognises that the PSR rules are also at risk of being unlawful for the inconsistency in treatment of shareholder loans and so are looking to change them, but the same big questions arise on that issue as well. Also, some clubs may not look favourably on having to capitalise loans or face having new loan agreements forced on them going forward with PSR consequences.
Still a bit of a mess.
I think.
Possibly :)