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

[blueparrot]

Can someone clear something up for me.

The rules are that 2/3rds of the PL must vote to approve something, so that the new rule was approved by 12 of the 18 clubs who voted (2 abstained including us)

So, why didn't we just vote against it - it would have been 12/7/1 and it would have been defeated. Job done surely??

I presume because voting means you accept the result of the vote. We never accepted the vote because we thought it was illegal.

 

[Keeper!]

Wow, Ian Darke mentions us without saying how much each player cost.

The lispy dickhead must be ill.

Just a senile old fool who should have been pensioned off long ago.

 

[kaz7]

View attachment 121525

I would , till his head fell off

 

[jockblue]

I presume because voting means yo accept the result of the vote. We never accepted the vote because we thought it was illegal.

But it wouldnt have mattered if the vote rejected the change.
Suggests either City hadn't read the room right on how many would vote against it, or didn't understand the 2/3rds rule (as many of us thought it was 14 no matter what)

 

[Rory Bluelow]

The leak will be out of context & filled with hate, racism & lies.

That depends on who it’s leaked to :)

 

[jaiguruKun]

But it wouldnt have mattered if the vote rejected the change.
Suggests either City hadn't read the room right on how many would vote against it, or didn't understand the 2/3rds rule (as many of us thought it was 14 no matter what)

I thought the 12-6 vote was to bring in FFP at all and the AP sponsorship rules cleared much more comfortably. Could be wrong though.

 

[M18CTID]

Can someone clear something up? Are we suing the PL with this action? Or does that come later if we win the case?

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Can someone clear something up for me.

The rules are that 2/3rds of the PL must vote to approve something, so that the new rule was approved by 12 of the 18 clubs who voted (2 abstained including us)

So, why didn't we just vote against it - it would have been 12/7/1 and it would have been defeated. Job done surely??

City abstained because the advice of their lawyers was that the proposal on which they were asked to vote was unlawful. I suspect that, had they voted, the contention would be that they did actually accept the legality of the proposal and that the contention was simply a fall back position if the proposal were accepted. Not necessarily terminal but City's case may have been weakened.

 

[waspish]

How do we know those American clubs that use hedge funds don't all got links to all the other clubs with hedge funds? Because with hedge funds you down know who's invested in them and why they are banned in American sports purchases! You can see the voting system American mainly stick together and why chesleas sales of there own hotels to themselves got passed in the vote!

Now imagine if it was us doing that you think the vote would be in our favour?!

 

[route46]

What could the Premier league do if Saudi sponsor City and Abu Dhabi sponsor Newcastle?