And what message is the PL sending to the members of the tribunal? Basically that they can go fook themselves.Making a decision before the Tribunal makes their recommendations.... Non collaborative, adversarial and arrogant. The sooner the leadership, and maybe the organisation, is brought down, the better.
It's costing them £ MILLIONs £ just to be angry.Perhaps today was a crass show of force by the PL because they are angry with City. Maybe there is no strategy at all. Just like when they rushed out the 115 charges. Maybe they simply want to fuck City up and give us a bloody nose whenever they can. No pressure on the tribunal now then LOL
Some of the changes to the APT rules will make it easier to contest the PL's rulings about fair market value that could help City getting sponsorship deals through that were rejectedI don’t really understand what this APT stuff means, and I can’t be arsed finding out.
All I want to know is, does this latest vote make it harder for us to spend more on new players, or make no difference to that?
The PL have cleared stated today that changes to rules or new rules cannot be applied retrospectively Im wondering of this will help City in other instances?
I think it’s because of the possible implications on the 115. I see todays vote merely as a delaying tactic for possible further legal action by City…..I’m confused why the premier league needed to rush this vote through.
Vote today - Prem league get the result they want.
Vote in a few weeks - Prem league would still get the result they want.
The only difference would be if the panel give a contrary instruction on the rules.
There is no advantage to City being in this position in a few weeks so what are the premier league up to?
Are they allowing for legal challenges to deliberately delay sponsorships for City. This part makes no sense to me but I’m sure it’s a thought out strategy, just not by Masters.
That wasn't why Leicester "got off". Leicester showed that they were not a PL club when the breaches took place and so had not and could not breach PL regulations.Yes, but then they would then possibly be able to challenge that as being procedurally unfair in a similar way to how Leicester got off.
That's it in a nutshell "making it up as they go along".Agree I don't understand how some financial 'miss doings' don't have retrospective added but some 'miss doings' do.
It seems the pl are making it up as they go depending on which clubs are involved
It should do because they've tried that stunt on us alreadyThe PL have clearly stated today that changes to rules or new rules cannot be applied retrospectively Im wondering if this will help City in other instances?