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
I think it depends on the circumstance, but I’m not sure I agree with this point. I think you do need a majority of clubs to decide on bigger issues. Otherwise things like the super league would have happened. It obviously needs reworking though
A completely neutral relegator would work better imo.
Clubs don't vote for what is best for football/the league, they vote for what is best for them.
United/Liverpool/Arsenal/Spurs have voted against us every time because what is bad for us is better for them. Nothing to do with improving the game.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
glass half empty. I’m thinking the case of the 115 charges ain’t going well at all and city are trying to sling some mud about the place. If it was going well why would we rock the boat.
Of course you two do...Not a good sign for me, sounds like it's a last gasp attempt to throw off a bad outcome from the 115
BongoBlue
Well-Known Member
Fucking hell. The stones on City.
Khaldoon looks pretty menacing there all right...;)
its a shit thing because the fair market value is whatever anyone is willing to pay, so whatever a club can get is fair market valueThis should help club's image, sigh. Seems so unnecessary to me. Unless they've got real dirt, which I doubt. Exhausting being a City fan.
Is fair market value a bad thing, really? Or is it not being used fairly?
Didsbury Dave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2007
- Messages
- 38,034
That might be City’s end game.A completely neutral relegator would work better imo.
Clubs don't vote for what is best for football/the league, they vote for what is best for them.
United/Liverpool/Arsenal/Spurs have voted against us every time because what is bad for us is better for them. Nothing to do with improving the game.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
The PL leadership has been compromised because of undue influence from LFC, MUFC, Spurs, and Arsenal. Our commercial rivals have colluded to try and destroy City. They been running a smear campaign for ten years. Now they are trying to curtail owner investment which has been allowed in football for more than 100 years but doesn't suit certain clubs any more. This smear campaign has been backed up by a poisonous racist whispering campaign. Some of our rivals have been fed confidential commercial information about City from UEFA and PL officials. This is really just naked corruption. And I, for one, am delighted that City have taken the gloves off.Glass half full. The club genuinely believes it's getting fucked over on account of being from the Middle East to the point that a UAE-based company faces more restrictions for sponsoring City than it would for United. The club wants to fight this independently from the charges.
Cravenvirgin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 114
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Yeah and we can all guess who is at the front of that queue.The league’s other 19 clubs have been invited to participate in the legal action and The Times understands between 10 and 12 have stepped forward, providing either witness statements or a letter detailing evidence in support of the Premier League’s defence against the claim. Those who have provided witness statements may be called by the tribunal to give evidence at the hearing.
not before time either. About time City started fighting back. I hope they give the PL and the red cartel a bloody nose.Goodness I wasn't expecting anything like this, certainly not yet. Certainly thrown the cat amongst the pigeons.
Right - but those rules came in 3 years ago (Nov 2021) and we did nothing until the 2 parties are in a huge, other, legal battle. I think people arguing the 2 are unrelated are being very naive.
I don't think that is the case. I don't think they have been in place the last 3 years.
I am more then happy tp be wrong. But from menory it is only this year that the rules, voted on in principle some 3 years ago, became formalised and there indeed was a reaction to this around the start of the year.
Not something I have to hand or follow intrinsically enough mind you, just going off a loose recollection I have at this point.