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

skillman said:
Interesting, this. If we've chosen to launch legal action, we'll be comfortable being able to prove what Stefan is saying here.
Click to expand...

Not sure. Think he is being far more narrow with it, at pace probably, than the article itself suggests. City are reportedly claiming loss due to the delay to deals by the uncertainty caused, which is different to an outright loss of a rejected deal.

How that works out legally, I have no idea, but pointing out Stefan and the article are talking about two somewhat different things.
 
Last edited:
strudelslol said:
Am I reading too much into the timing of the 115 charges hearing in November and the club wanting a response from Pep regarding his contract around the same time? Seems a strange time to announce either a departure or an extension without the 2 being linked.
Click to expand...

You are reading too much into it.

Pep has been signing extensions in November since the dawn of time.
 
domalino said:
It's one of those things where even if you win you're the bad guy.

People think related companies should pay fair sponsorships, that's clearly the majority opinion. They don't really care if the process by which the PL achieves that stands up to english law, they just want the end result.

So the absolute best case scenario is we win, the PL says "sorry we tried to bring in rules but City stopped it" and then it's our fault when Aramco pay Newcastle £350m/year.

Or we win, and then we use that judgment as a weapon against the PL. "Lets see what else we can dismantle" etc. or even because it's in 2 parts, we could win and then use the upcoming award of damages as a weapon. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.
Click to expand...
It’s Not about “related”, Dom, but I expect the clubs have not got this straight.
 
domalino said:
It's one of those things where even if you win you're the bad guy.

People think related companies should pay fair sponsorships, that's clearly the majority opinion. They don't really care if the process by which the PL achieves that stands up to english law, they just want the end result.

So the absolute best case scenario is we win, the PL says "sorry we tried to bring in rules but City stopped it" and then it's our fault when Aramco pay Newcastle £350m/year.

Or we win, and then we use that judgment as a weapon against the PL. "Lets see what else we can dismantle" etc. or even because it's in 2 parts, we could win and then use the upcoming award of damages as a weapon. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.
Click to expand...
It depends what you mean by fair? . Is it fair that utd can get a much bigger shirt sponsorship or Chervrolet deal that got the exec fired.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Concerned a little by the timing but GTFI City.
Click to expand...

Apparently this was back in Feb.. but it's just come out.

I'm not worried.. 2 simple reasons.

1. I love City
2. Khaldoon doesn't do stuff out of desperation. He crafts a plan.

It may work or it may not work, but he's clearly thought it out.

Now if this has happened the week after 115 charges.. it may be reactionary but it's evident this is something to do with the PL trying to kill our sponsorship deals and obviously they must have given City the ammunition to go after them in court.
 
domalino said:
It's one of those things where even if you win you're the bad guy.

People think related companies should pay fair sponsorships, that's clearly the majority opinion. They don't really care if the process by which the PL achieves that stands up to english law, they just want the end result.

So the absolute best case scenario is we win, the PL says "sorry we tried to bring in rules but City stopped it" and then it's our fault when Aramco pay Newcastle £350m/year.

Or we win, and then we use that judgment as a weapon against the PL. "Lets see what else we can dismantle" etc. or even because it's in 2 parts, we could win and then use the upcoming award of damages as a weapon. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.
Click to expand...
Equally though, we don't know that City haven't spent 3 years putting a case together, as the Premier league did with us. We did abstain as we felt APT rules weren't legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.