halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,441
Have you got a quote etc anywhere
You still haven't found the APT rules in the handbook six months later?
Have you got a quote etc anywhere
No.Is it yet another indicator of the 115 charges about to be dropped ????
I said MOSTLY agree, that is one point I puzzle over because I know it has gone on in the past. Rancid meat to schools being one case in point ;-)If you feel the same as them are you able to clarify this point:
I don’t really want to see a league where the team with the deepest pockets wins all the prizes.
Football has been like this for decades. In fact the current financial rules make it more likely the teams at the top will stay there, so please could you state why it’s bad that City challenge such rules from a legal perspective?
It begs the question, if as Stefan said we are very unlikely to win this case, why have the club taken it on?
thank you.will be out at 1pm. And on Youtube in pieces later I suspect.
This rugby writing Times shill is married to Arsenal chief commercial officer Julia Slot
Man City are taking the nuclear option – the result will be anarchy
Legal challenge by Man City is a battle about cutting loose from the rules and in so doing creating a disparity that kills the Premier League as a competitionwww.thetimes.co.uk
It was related party, that's why City are doing this due to the changes to the rules where they use their version and called it associated party which seems to mean if you're from the same region (but not the USA obviously).I thought it was decided previously by UEFA that the Etihad sponsorship was at arm's length so they were not an associated party hence would not be affected by those Rules? Are the PL rules with regard to who is or isn't an associated party different to UEFA?
Did we pay Mancini off the books from another account - probably yes.