Inter Me Nan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 10,619
Good.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Matt Diablo
Well-Known Member
We have made the corrupt b'stards delete shit that WE took them to court forIs it good or bad for us ?
oakiecokie
Well-Known Member
Nothing in the media so far. I wonder why ? ;)
It’s good in that the rule amendments in February that we objected to have effectively been removed, but I think people are getting a bit carried away by this. The APT rules haven’t been scrapped, they’ve just gone back to the pre-Feb 24 version. Worth noting that the new proposed Etihad deal was rejected by the PL under the old rules anyway. Also should point out that this could all yet change once we get the tribunal’s final findings (assuming that the two parties haven’t had them yet).Is it good or bad for us ?
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 10,095
Pubs still open yet, give the hacks time.Nothing in the media so far. I wonder why ? ;)
It’s good in that the rule amendments in February that we objected to have effectively been removed, but I think people are getting a bit carried away by this. The APT rules haven’t been scrapped, they’ve just gone back to the pre-Feb 24 version.
Which is still good for City, Newcastle, Forest, Villa, etc.
The new rules that were put in place by Masters, the PL and the Red Cartel clubs to stop and slow down Newcastle and other clubs have been amended back to pre 2024, as you say.
And no interest free loans by owners to get their clubs past FFP and PSR.
That will do.
A good result.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
quite so -and unfairly - tick tockIt’s good in that the rule amendments in February that we objected to have effectively been removed, but I think people are getting a bit carried away by this. The APT rules haven’t been scrapped, they’ve just gone back to the pre-Feb 24 version. Worth noting that the new proposed Etihad deal was rejected by the PL under the old rules anyway.
Micky Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2024
- Messages
- 77
- Team supported
- Man City
They’ll be working out a way to spin it that we’re the corrupt ones. When this evidently proves the PL are bent as fuck.Nothing in the media so far. I wonder why ? ;)
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,350
It’s good in that the rule amendments in February that we objected to have effectively been removed, but I think people are getting a bit carried away by this. The APT rules haven’t been scrapped, they’ve just gone back to the pre-Feb 24 version. Worth noting that the new proposed Etihad deal was rejected by the PL under the old rules anyway. Also should point out that this could all yet change once we get the tribunal’s final findings (assuming that the two parties haven’t had them yet).
Truth.
The rolling back of the 2024 changes is good, but I think whether City have "won" or not depends on whether the new Etihad deal is effective or not. I am not clear whether the assessment of the deal being set aside by the tribunal means that the deal is now effective or whether the PL can now re-assess the deal under these new (in the PL's view) lawful rules.
On the wider point of the lawfulness of the new rules, as you say we have to wait for the tribunal's upcoming judgment before that can be determined. Publication of the new rules doesn't really mean anything in isolation, other than that the PL are still doing it their unilateral way.
DiscoSteve
Well-Known Member
didn't see that - are these now banned going forwards? (but not retrospectively)And no interest free loans by owners to get their clubs past FFP and PSR.