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

[Vic]

What’s wrong with that?

"Leading counsel" might be understood as meaning better than City’s. How often do "leading counsel" lose a civil case? 50%?

 

[slbsn]

:) Fair enough. I eventually got that that was your point with the help of several others.

The new rules are being implemented November 22 aren't they? You don't think the club will get them to delay that until the tribunal judgment? Or you just think there is no point?

No point, I'd say

 

[KS55]

You maybe right, but would it not be nieve of us not to think stuff happens like this. Just look at all the corruption that goes on in the government and big business. Call me a cynic and maybe delusional but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

You are talking about judges here. They are a completely different animal to businessmen or politicians.You have to trust that they are not corrupt. Quirky sometimes but highly ethical.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You are talking about judges here. They are a completely different animal to businessmen. You have to trust that they are not corrupt. Quirky sometimes but highly ethical.

Correct. It's not the US we are talking about :)

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

I wonder if this is good news re the 115 ?
This supposed loss leaked fairly sharply .
With the 115 being so so quiet I just wonder if the PL are taking a good hiding

 

[sir baconface]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve not seen anything to suggest the tribunal (or even City) expected loan interest to apply retroactively to PSR calculations.

Void, unlawful or whatever, the clubs in question acted in accordance with PL rules at the time and would probably have acted differently otherwise.

Complying with unlawfully framed rules doesn’t equate to breaking the laws of the land.

If City are pissed off, I’m thinking it’s over some other aspect of the case.

 

[Norbiton]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve not seen anything to suggest the tribunal (or even City) expected loan interest to apply retroactively to PSR calculations.

Void, unlawful or whatever, the clubs in question acted in accordance with PL rules at the time and would probably have acted differently otherwise.

Complying with unlawfully framed rules doesn’t equate to breaking the laws of the land.

If City are pissed off, I’m thinking it’s over some other aspect of the case.

But they can’t apply unlawful restrictions on sponsorships retrospectively either. If City’s deal with Etihad is not already in place then surely they can claim millions in compensation?

 

[sir baconface]

City's media market/focus isnt on a small island in the Irish/North Sea, infested with a biased,racist, dying species.

To a considerable extent they are irrelevant, barely tolerated, and mainly beyond cultivation.

Our market is global,eventually to become inter galactic.

Millions in England are beyond redemption..... BILLION'S globally are potential blues.

Keep yer eyes on the money !!

Cheers Donald.

 

[sir baconface]

But they can’t apply unlawful restrictions on sponsorships retrospectively either. If City’s deal with Etihad is not already in place then surely they can claim millions in compensation?

That’s the way I see it, mate.

Whether City step up the battle and follow this through remains to be seen.

Maybe it’s like a war, though, where the parties eventually come to a negotiated agreement.

Regardless of media bollox and the views of millions of online bitters, I’m happy that City have already won a major victory in forcing very significant changes.

 

[Vic]

But they can’t apply unlawful restrictions on sponsorships retrospectively either. If City’s deal with Etihad is not already in place then surely they can claim millions in compensation?

If the PL blocked City's sponsorship deal under an agreement that was void because the agreement was designed to affect City but not PL clubs with interest-free loans, then that would seem to give rise to a claim for damages.