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

[Coatigan]

Thanks mate, that helps. I wrongly tried to chew through things myself and ended up down a tangent and confused.

It's bizarre that Murphy actually seems to get it and rightly comes to the conclusion that this is a mountain out of the molehill. Anything anti-City sells, so it's no surprise we've seen selective quoting from our submission that adds to the drama. Ultimately if the rules are unlawful then quite correctly they'll have to go back to the drawing board. But what will happen is a new rule will be introduced that is lawful. That law will be quite similar, but the club will be aiming for a lawful version to have to remove the elements they're not content with.

The wider parts on the 14 club majority - well we'll have to see how much weight we've put on those. I'd imagine we've just thrown everything we can into the mix. The arbitrators will provide their position so what it does do is flush out any future legal case we may or may not pursue. If the arbitrators dismiss some of our claims outright we know it's not worth exploring further in the future.

Why so many journalists are suggesting this blows up the PL as we know it is a joke. It's one rule from what we know, and it just gets passed under different wording at a time in the future realistically. It doesn't mean all rules are out of the window. There's as much logic to that allegation as there would be in saying win this and we will field a team of 115 players and they can use their hands. That's a club statement I'd like to see.

The papers certainly don't help, but it certainly is no battle for the soul of football many seem to have got hooked on. Agree re Danny Murphy, offered something, and drew reasonable conclusions to what was said. As opposed to trying to counter everything with innuendo and just plain wrong but provocative proclamations. They should consider replacing Simon Jordan with him more often.

 

[theres only one carlito]

I have just listened to Stefan on Talk**** this morning and was interested in his comments on the club's attitude to the PL voting system on new rules. Could someone provide me with the voting figures for the adoption of the ATP rule, please. I believe it was 12 in favour, 6 against and two abstentions. This is important because only 60% of the clubs voted in favour if I'm right (only 60% of the PL membership). Only if the two abstentions are counted as voting in favour (which they clearly didn't!) can those in favour be said to have reached the 70% required. Stefan never mentioned this and yet it could explain what is seen as our club's attack on a democratic process - that is that the club have no problem with the process which is sound (unless it votes to introduce something which is unlawful!) but that, in this case the process was not followed and the ATP rule was not introduced at all because those in favour did not reach the required threshold. It's introduction, therefore, reflected "the tyranny of the majority" and not a properly enacted rule. Am I right or are my figures not correct?

I think you’re very much correct. And is exactly the reason the full context of the leaked document hasn’t been revealed. We know, all to well, exactly how out of context snippets can be portrayed to make sensational headlines. The full context wouldn’t allow that to happen so easily and the portrayal of ‘scandal’ isn’t much of a scandal anymore. Click bait headlines for a click bait world.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Grumbling about City attacking democracy is way off beam. Your commercial rivals don’t vote democratically, they vote to bolster their own position. An independent regulator would be a completely different matter.

Democracy or not, there should be someone only presenting things to the clubs for a vote that, first, are clearly legal and, second, are for the benefit of the league as a whole.

Can you imagine what a mess any country would be in if the population voted on everything themselves. The PL needs to have someone who says no, not that and not now. Then they can vote.

The lunatics are running the asylum at the minute.

 

[Cellarite]

Never mind all this talk of good guys and bad guys, its very hard to imagine that we're totally innocent of everything, to be perfectly honest.

So what's the end game here, if we do win the case and take the Premier League down as many City fans are calling

It'd be nice if you defended City with the same vigour that you defend your other team. Blue my arse.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

The only thing I’m somewhat confused about is that I understand that we abstained on the original vote. Had we voted against, it wouldn’t have gone through so, why didn’t we?

City didn’t vote because voting yes or no is the club endorsing that the vote and its subject was legal. Hence why the club is challenging.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

City abstained in 2021, when the original rules went through 18-1 (with only Newcastle voting against). In the more recent vote in Feb 24 we were one of the six clubs who voted against it.

Fair enough.

 

[cheekybids]

Strange thing, btw. All the 20 clubs are associated with each other. They are on the same board, together have control over the PL, yet transfers between clubs aren't subject to these rules.

Strange, that.

I’ve heard our key witness will be none other than Kevin Bacon & six degrees of separation association.

 

[give it to gordon]

The problem with the voting is its reasonable to think the American owners will stick together for their own good. Not what is best for the pl. Also it enables clubs to gang up on clubs they don't like.

The pl is rotten to the core.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

It's two thirds of the votes cast, excluding abstentions.

So if fucking Burnley hadn't abstained and voted no, it would have been defeated. Or Chelsea was the other one?

So abstaining was a vote in favour. And Burnley are no longer in the PL
Shithouses

 

[Academica]

Isn't that story about player protection from burn out, or am I being too naiev ?

Sorry probably not the best link to post. But remember this is the Premier League that schedule matches two days apart and Uefa with its expanded Champions League and pointless internationals during the season, that is now worried about player welfare. My point is surely this is down to the Club involved in consultation with the players. If it came to a vote of Premier League Clubs (to boycott) how do you think the vote would go. Do you think that is a reasonable system.