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

[Tim of the Oak]

No matter how it was phrased, the media would have twisted it to suit. Not that they should have had the document in the first place. The people on the panel will understand the meaning very well, they're the people who are important here, certainly not the media or idiots on social media.

There’s often a lot of communications that goes on alongside contentious legal cases. Why do you think Lawton leaked our case? It was to disadvantage us.

Stefan has helped to change the narrative by explaining on Talkshite that City’s case was about the Feb 2024 amendments, rather than a “existential threat” to football.

 

[Centurions]

Anayway!

Enough of this bickering amongst ourselves, let’s think positive.

Tomorrow could be the start of the end for Masters, the PL as we know it, and the 3 red shirt cartel clubs, who between themselves have run the PL since 1992.

View attachment 121882

Given tomorrow is today (so to speak) have I missed anything important? Have they decided yet? Why has the 12 teams sided with the PL appear to now be 8? Have the PL inexplicably deleted 4 teams so can't produce them as evidence?

We've got a new blackout blind coming this week for the bedroom, I'm hoping it blocks enough light in the morning so that I stop getting up at 5:30am every bloody morning. I desperately need sleep.

 

[Paladin]

City should have assumed the document would get leaked and this phrase would be picked apart in the Court room of Talkshite. Anyway. what's done is done.

One assumes legal process will be followed, and that documents won't be leaked. The phrase was used to make an important point in a case being discussed by lawyers. Our whole legal case is written by lawyers for lawyers. Are you saying the case should have been dumbed down, just on the off chance that it might somehow end up in the public domain?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

One assumes legal process will be followed, and that documents won't be leaked. The phrase was used to make an important point in a case being discussed by lawyers. Our whole legal case is written by lawyers for lawyers. Are you saying the case should have been dumbed down, just on the off chance that it might somehow end up in the public domain?

It was unlikely to be an important point according to Stefan in his TalkSPORT interview. City’s document is 165 pages long and this phrase is less than a sentence.

Very few people have seen City’s legal document so unless you are one of the handful, I’m not sure why you are making stuff up.

 

[Coatigan]

I bet you use that phrase all the time. Go and brush your teeth.

The issue is that phrase makes it easy for the manipulative media to report that we object to democratic votes. Not just a simple majority but a two thirds majority. Not only that, it was being reported that we were calling a dozen fellow Premier League Clubs tyrants. Do you seriously think our great legal brains couldn’t have come up with a better form of wording to get the argument across.

Only if someone simplifies an interpretation, and you then choose to run exclusively with that interpretation.

You have no idea how it was used though. It could have been positive. It could have been philosophical. And I can see the point, i.e just because people vote for something doesn't make it right. Hence, tyranny of the majority.

Ooh,the papers might say we object to a democratic vote. So what. We do! Clearly. That's democracy, having the right to do so. Has anyone reported that we are respecting those that died for the right to challenge governments and illicit laws? And those criticising that, are not.

At the end of the day, they are meaningless soundwaves. In there, it might add weight to their argument, it might not. I'll leave that to the professionals. Out here, it will trend for a bit, be explained to a few, some will learn something new some won't.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Only if someone simplifies an interpretation, and you then choose to run exclusively with that interpretation.

You have no idea how it was used though. It could have been positive. It could have been philosophical. And I can see the point, i.e just because people vote for something doesn't make it right. Hence, tyranny of the majority.

Ooh,the papers might say we object to a democratic vote. So what. We do! Clearly. That's democracy, having the right to do so. Has anyone reported that we are respecting those that died for the right to challenge governments and illicit laws? And those criticising that, are not.

At the end of the day, they are meaningless soundwaves. In there, it might add weight to their argument, it might not. I'll leave that to the professionals. Out here, it will trend for a bit, be explainrd to a few, some will learn something new some won't.

I’ve not run with any interpretation. I’ve shared how the media have been reporting this phrase. If you can’t accept that City / our lawyers can make a genuine mistake then that’s up to you. It has already died down helped by very knowledgable Blues who have explained they City are almost certainly not taking on the Prem’s two thirds majority voting rule.

People who have worked on highly contentious legislation / litigations will understand how important the Comms often are.

 

[Coatigan]

I’ve not run with any interpretation. I’ve shared how the media have been reporting this phrase. If you can’t accept that City / our lawyers can make a genuine mistake then that’s up to you. It has already died down helped by very knowledgable Blues who have explained they City are almost certainly not taking on the Prem’s two thirds majority voting rule.

People who have worked on highly contentious legislation / litigations will understand how important the Comms often are.

Oh I accept they can certainly make mistakes. I just don't take it for granted they have made one every time the media misrepresent something out of context.

There are far bigger misconceptions out there because of this btw, that the media have twisted out of this one.

I.e, that this is an attack on football as a whole and a retrospective attempt to abolish FFP. It is not, City have been on board with FFP for a decade, and with FMV for 3 years. It is one change, challenged as soon as it came about.

That it is a cynical attempt at tying up the PL resources to delay or stifle the 115 case.

That it is a revolt and an attempt to split and destabilise the league. To what benefit? It was the PL that is reported to have approached other clubs for statements of support, not City.

That City 'want to' inflate their deals and pump artificial money into the club. Says who, who can know such inner plans of the club? When so far that has been proven not to be the case.

And so on, many more.

Have the club then 'dropped a clanger' with every one of those, by not considering the PR fallout of the media twist on all of the above? C'mon, the club would never attempt Anything, not even one player signing, if they based their decisions on how the media present things to their audiences.

There will be far heavier words used than 'tyranny of the majority' in the submission. Like for example this being done by 'clubs intent on pursuing their own commercial interests'. That imo is far more openly critical, and direct, than a philosophical metaphor. Why hasn't That been discussed as much by the media though? Because it is harder to portray as one sided, and just Might lead to actual questions and heaven forbid discussion of other clubs' potential interests here.

 

[Paladin]

It was unlikely to be an important point according to Stefan in his TalkSPORT interview. City’s document is 165 pages long and this phrase is less than a sentence.

Very few people have seen City’s legal document so unless you are one of the handful, I’m not sure why you are making stuff up.

Which bit did I make up?

 

[Paladin]

I’ve not run with any interpretation. I’ve shared how the media have been reporting this phrase. If you can’t accept that City / our lawyers can make a genuine mistake then that’s up to you. It has already died down helped by very knowledgable Blues who have explained they City are almost certainly not taking on the Prem’s two thirds majority voting rule.

People who have worked on highly contentious legislation / litigations will understand how important the Comms often are.

The media would have portrayed us negatively whether that phrase was included or excluded. They hate us. If it helps us win the case, then include it. The best chance of winning the case should be the only consideration here, not public perception.

 

[Coatigan]

One assumes legal process will be followed, and that documents won't be leaked. The phrase was used to make an important point in a case being discussed by lawyers. Our whole legal case is written by lawyers for lawyers. Are you saying the case should have been dumbed down, just on the off chance that it might somehow end up in the public domain?

Has it occured to anyone that the club may well have fully considered how the media might have spun this if they got a hold of it? And still decided it was worth it to emphasise the point.

'Oh they should have known it would get leaked, and be used to give wee jimmy on twitter something to tweet about'.. Maybe they did, and still decided to use it.