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

Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Here's the link to the Times article without a paywall:

Loading…

archive.ph

It includes some direct quotes from the Cliff letter

In his letter, Cliff writes: “Man City is strongly in favour of robust, effective and lawful regulation of related party transactions. Several of the APT rules have been found to be unlawful. The legal effect of this is — we say — that the APT regime is void and importantly the previous RPT (related party transactions) regime, that the APT regime superseded, remains in force until any new regime is agreed.
“In the meantime, common sense dictates that the PL [Premier League] should not rush into passing amendments — particularly ones which entail material legal risk — until the PL knows the outcome from the tribunal. It is important that a new regime is grounded in rules that are fair, considered and legal. Our strong desire is to avoid any future costly legal disputes on this issue and so it is critical that the PL gets it right this time round.”
Cliff says there are three key issues to consider, with the first being that the “proposed rules are unlawful”. He says the Premier League’s response to this claim “does not allay our fundamental concerns that the proposals are not legal”.
Click to expand...
Bearing in mind the Times was the only paper to report on this and, only hours after City sent the letters out, am I right in saying City briefed the Times ?
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the odds are for the PL meeting next Friday either being called off or no vote being taken?

You would think they would only take a vote if they knew they had the numbers, but they are that inept nothing would surprise me.
 
Blue Mist said:
Bearing in mind the Times was the only paper to report on this and, only hours after City sent the letters out, am I right in saying City briefed the Times ?
Click to expand...
Matt Lawton (The Times) and Mike Keegan (Daily Mail) both reported on the same topic at the very same time. I highly suspect City briefed both of them.
 
citizen_maine said:
and how does that help the cartel?
Click to expand...
Ha ha.....yeh fair enough. But tbh CM I don't give a flying fuck about the cartel. They've tried to constrain us with unlawful rules that tilt the balance in favour of other clubs and we've still gone and won 4 in a row! If the rules are lawful so it doesn't favour anyone and we then go and spank their arses then that's perfect, a giant two fingered salute to those cartel clubs and the PL. Wishful thinking maybe but that's all I want....lawful rules, applied to everyone, no dissent......and then we still go and win the league.
 
So the wankers are trying yet again to install unlawful apt rules on top of unlawful apt rules declared by the tribunal which still have not given its final decision?

Well well who is surprised? The league already tried to say changing a few words would be sufficient. Now they come back again with yet another ill thought out attempt to protect a few controlling clubs.

This will go on forever, the twisting of words and the legal battles will become the new battleground season after season. Bottom feeding point scoring.

The 4 clubs who have a problem with city won’t stop until we are put in our rightful place. For them that means yo-yo up and down the league and maybe finish mid to low table in the premier, give us a pat on the head yeah! Good job city well done.

History is not the 90s but a mere fraction of time that city did not perform to previous standards. All clubs go through ups and down, good owners to bad.

What we have now is a relentless attack borne out of greed, jealousy, fear and prejudice.

The club has to stand up to bullies. No more shall we bend the knee.

This fight is long from finished.
 
Last edited:
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Here's the link to the Times article without a paywall:

Loading…

archive.ph

It includes some direct quotes from the Cliff letter

In his letter, Cliff writes: “Man City is strongly in favour of robust, effective and lawful regulation of related party transactions. Several of the APT rules have been found to be unlawful. The legal effect of this is — we say — that the APT regime is void and importantly the previous RPT (related party transactions) regime, that the APT regime superseded, remains in force until any new regime is agreed.
“In the meantime, common sense dictates that the PL [Premier League] should not rush into passing amendments — particularly ones which entail material legal risk — until the PL knows the outcome from the tribunal. It is important that a new regime is grounded in rules that are fair, considered and legal. Our strong desire is to avoid any future costly legal disputes on this issue and so it is critical that the PL gets it right this time round.”
Cliff says there are three key issues to consider, with the first being that the “proposed rules are unlawful”. He says the Premier League’s response to this claim “does not allay our fundamental concerns that the proposals are not legal”.
Click to expand...

Not having him referring to us as Man City.

Get rid.
 
I dont understand why the mail won’t publish the report if they have managed to view it?

Did I not hear the media demand transparency on anything city related including the 115 and apt?

Instead we get told they have viewed it and will report snippets and portray said snippets in any way they deem acceptable.

Where is the 11 pages?

How can we check the facts against the drivel that is spread about like wildfire!
 
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.