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

[CityPar]

I'm not entirely convinced that City have a strong case here and most of the arguments seem more emotive than anything else. But that's is just based on what's being reported which I've no doubt has an anti-City slant to it so let's just trust the Club have called this right. Bring it on.

 

[Sky Blue]

About fucking time

Hope it ends better for us than it did for Tony.

 

[Asa's left peg]

I wonder what this bit means? What projects and what delayed deals? Do funds go through the PL first?

'In their claim, City are seeking “damages for the losses which it has incurred as a result of the unlawfulness of the FMV [fair market value] rules”, in particular for costs resulting from delays, sums they claim were not paid under agreed deals and additional costs, including the club’s inability to generate revenue from delayed or cancelled projects. This, clubs believe, could potentially amount to tens of millions.'

 

[xgorton]

I am at Alicante tonight : )

Off tomorrow Santa Polo.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I also don’t have the regs to hand but I do specifically remember they came into effect immediately because (presumably) the point was to stop Newcastle before that first transfer window in Jan 2022.

The requirement for competitive bids (even for renewals) was last year. That was what led to the threat of legal action, iirc. And I am not surprised. There is no commercial need for that requirement for "associated parties" other than to make it substantially more difficult for City and Newcastle to sign / renew their major deals. It was precisely targeted.

Before that there was just an expression that the original APT measures could be illegal, but no threat iirc.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Matt Lawton’s piece even states that the 115 charges are between 2009 and 2023.

They are not!

It’s 2009 to 2018.

Basic stuff.

 

[jacko74]

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

Is there any aspect of the press or broadcast media that sits on any other side of the fence?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You poke the bear expect a response. I for one am pleased the club have acted like this. We all know the FFP rules and sponsorship were brought in to protect the cartel.

Interestingly there was an obvious pro PL slant in the article, it didn't mention the huge sums of money Utd have spent when unsuccessfully trying to buy the league. Or the huge debt that their owners have put on their club.

 

[manimanc]

It quite interesting to think, when all this and the charges are resolved, how things are going to be between us and the PL.

Couldn't care less.

Them cunts at the Premier League have tarnished our reputation and dragged our name through the mud just to keep the red cartel mardarses happy.

I hope we take them to the cleaners and masters gets put on the dole.

 

[argyle]

The most likely source is someone connected to LFC because that is where the Times got the UEFA leaks from. I also think that United have shut down the dirty tricks since Ratcliffe came in and have also appointed Omar Berrada as CEO.

Read a couple of articles that gave a hint of a different approach from Ratcliffe.

As others have said these charges have all been brought about by the Americans.