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

[Protein Junkie]

About time!! Let's take em to the cleaners!

Stop talking a lot of Bolloms :-)

 

[kunaguero10]

Up the fucking blues

Khaldoon's army goes marching in

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Scream if you want to go faster!!!!!!

 

[pudge]

Right, so what have I missed?

 

[EL APACHE TEVEZ]

This is going to be very good

 

[eastmanc]

By the tone of the article we all know what side of the fence the Times sit on.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Never a dull moment is there?

I'm off to get my Lord Pannick tattoo now.

 

[jrb]

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.

These 10-12 clubs.

United?
Liverpool?
Arsenal?
Spurs?
Chelsea?
………….?

 

[KS55]

This is clearly a calculated and very serious move by City. Suggests to me that they have come to the end of their tether with the cartel’s antics to try and stop them.

Also, whilst it is not directly linked to the 115 charges, I hope it another sign of their confidence that they are going to prevail on that front but you could choose to read it either way; not much point suing the EPL if you don’t think you will still be in it!?

Yep. The cartel’s antics see the light of day in the PL’s craven obedience to the redshirts. Every time the rules change, not to mention the 115 nonsense, you can detect the cartel’s influence.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Contrary to that 12 clubs have come in favor of pl and only one with us .

We have no idea what the other clubs have said. What we do know is that someone at the PL or another club has leaked the story to the Times. I suspect it is probably the same source that has always leaked to the Times and you can be sure that the Times article is biased in favour of whoever leaked it. Why has it been leaked now?