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

[slbsn]

Too true! Naught for our comfort in that lot of hot air. Echoes Stefan's pivotal dispute with City's legal team discussed so much in the thread - having the new Etihad & AD Bank deal reassessed under the pre Feb APT rules may well still result in them staying blocked - can't see any other win so why is it a good day for us on his take ?

I don’t think my content is for you - why watch at all especially as I’ve taken the time to explain my position to you personally in reply. The wins for City are clear but perhaps not enough for you unless they take the whole system down. City rowed back the Feb 2024 rules, established limits going forward for the PL, caused a few ripples re shareholder loans and got another bite at the Etihad transaction. But the fact that these points are limited was always my point when I explained why I thought it was only a narrow win at best.

BTW for the millionth time, City’s Etihad deal was never assessed under the Feb 24 rules. It was only ever assessed under the original ones. Presumably, if they still can’t get approval, any subsequent assessment is now under current rules so that is one reason City will be pleased the Feb 24 rules are gone.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

The audacity of the media to call out a couple of footballers rather than delve into the main protagonists of tax avoidance.

....who are ??

 

[oldius]

As I have said before, I have the honour of being considered both a mouthpiece and shill for City whilst simultaneously upsetting Jonny types for being sceptical about City’s extreme legal position.

That's like two TalkSport presenters in one!

Keep up the good work. Personally, I look forward to your analysis even though I long for an end to the legal shenanigans so we can focus on the football itself (written six weeks ago)!

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

As I have said before, I have the honour of being considered both a mouthpiece and shill for City whilst simultaneously upsetting Jonny types for being sceptical about City’s extreme legal position.

You have too many likes to posts ratio to challenge me for being disliked by everybody. It’s my crown. The job is taken. There’s no room for two. I don’t share.

 

[Blue Mist]

And he wants the same minnows to foot the bill to build his new stadium, incredible the brass neck of these top hats.

Shameless.

I don't have a problem with him asking for our money.
What I have a problem with is an elected government, locally elected officials and the media not calling out the absurdity of the request.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

One or two on here are quite hostile to Stefan. He is just giving his opinion; argue against if you like, but no aggression needed.

They also add fuck all to the debate either.

 

[johnny crossan]

I don’t think my content is for you - why watch at all especially as I’ve taken the time to explain my position to you personally in reply. The wins for City are clear but perhaps not enough for you unless they take the whole system down. City rowed back the Feb 2024 rules, established limits going forward for the PL, caused a few ripples re shareholder loans and got another bite at the Etihad transaction. But the fact that these points are limited was always my point when I explained why I thought it was only a narrow win at best.

BTW for the millionth time, City’s Etihad deal was never assessed under the Feb 24 rules. It was only ever assessed under the original ones. Presumably, if they still can’t get approval, any subsequent assessment is now under current rules so that is one reason City will be pleased the Feb 24 rules are gone.

You are in error, I said the new sponsorships were being reassessed under the PRE FEB Rules having been judged as unfairly blocked under them.
If they remain blocked, as seems distinctly possible on your reading, City will have zero significant wins from the this judgement. That's why I'm backing City's public position - which is one I'd be very grateful for you to point out the problems with and which tbf seem to be also acknowleged by Chris in London, GDM and Petrushka. What have Pannick et al got wrong exactly?

 

[Sky Blue]

Keown writing stuff down pretending to know what's going on is fucking hilarious.

 

[Silva2021]

As I have said before, I have the honour of being considered both a mouthpiece and shill for City whilst simultaneously upsetting Jonny types for being sceptical about City’s extreme legal position.

You hit the nail on the head for me and I enjoy listening to your insight.

There is an inevitability in football you only have to see in pundits, whichever team they are associated with the vast majority consider them to be bias towards, however most of their teams fan base feel they are too objective and should speak like a fan down the pub.

I say you have done a great job and you’ve certainly won the respect of the likes of Jordan (not sure you would be bothered either way) but he listens to you or at least waits for his turn to speak, whereas previously he just interrupted.

Keep up the good work, it’s a hard subject for a lot of people to understand and the way you explain it simplistically is a real skill.

 

[johnny crossan]

A bit unfair. It was Jordan who first said it was a good day for City. I think what @slbsn meant was that the vote wasn't a huge defeat for City as it was presented, for the reasons we all know, and that otherwise it was largely irrelevant.

Nothing at all wrong with that segment. Put his view over and said it was his opinion but nobody knows. That's all anyone can expect.

My personal view, while not based on the level of knowledge he has of course, is that nobody will know who "wins" and "loses" until the final tribunal judgment. Good headlines but complete nonsense, especially on the recent vote. And the "win" for the club is getting the Etihad deal through by whatever means possible.

I just can't shake the idea that City have a strategy here that goes beyond getting the Etihad deal through. Could be wrong, of course but it would explain a few things I am struggling with in my simple brain.

What's unfair, I just want to know why Stefan repeatedly dismisses the club's case. No explanation is ever offered, he just calls a it 'extreme' and highly unlikely to be endorsed by the panel. If it is isn't and our our new sponsor deals remain blocked it'll be total victory for the PL.