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

Not going to give my precious click(1 click =< penny) to talk shit but I take it Stefan played bango in front of an owl in a jar.

I did click on it because Stefan is there but didn’t bother listening to Jordan’s apparent diatribe the other day.

My opinion;
Stefan- Controlled, factual, right on point. Deals with what is known and dismissed the reported rubbish regarding the consequences of a verdict either way.
Puts paid to the idea that this and the 115 charges are in any way related as none of the APT rules we are querying were in place for the period we are being charged for, for alleged accounting irregularities/fraud.

Jordan on the other hand- Agrees with Stefan but……
Here’s the bit I’m gathering isn’t normal for him when people who know better than him aren’t about.
But - I have tried my best to look at the whole interview impartially. It’s difficult I know as a City supporter who takes umbrage with the normal diatribe rubbish he is reported to come out with, along with many other clickbait media outlets…….

But, has the guy listened back to what he actually said.
He is saying that city are wrong, because we signed up to the rules of a club.
It was pointed out the rules were changed in 2013 after our first title.
We still prospered under the rules.
We prospered very well indeed and the rules were changed again in 2021, and we went with them although we expressed dissatisfaction with the expansion of rules that seemed aimed at one sector and the last straw was the further expansion which we deem illegal in February 2024.

I’ll paraphrase, but he basically interjected to say that we did very well and dominated under the rules for a decade and rules of games evolve in modern times and if we get these new rules overturned, imagine how successful we will be.
It’s mind boggling to him and he looks at it as City wanting an unfair advantage that nobody will be able to cope with.

Does he not realise he is basically admitting that the reasons for the rule changes all along have been to curb City and now the likes of us also.

That’s it there plain and simple. It is an open admission of what this is all about and yet he tries to maintain City are the bullies in how they are going about things.
He has also said yes, that makes him part of the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.
Damn right it does as he and his media ilk openly peddle that message only dressed up nicely for their Majority audience who couldn’t give a fuck whether it’s tyranny/just/racist/ or not.

If this is the best that they can wheel out in the media to express the cartel victim card, then surely any neutral cannot be swayed by such drivel.
 
It's really clear these rules were brought in to try and stop City and than redone to stop Newcastle.
I can't see how this will not be voted in City's favour.
It's clear the American clubs are trying to stop competition.
I'm surprised Stefan is not more confident.

To me It's clear but I'm just a layman

That's not really what they are reported to be trying to prove. That's just the context. It is true, bur whether it is illegal or not, that's what this case is all about.
 
No. Still not getting it.
Explain!


The below equation should help explain.

IMG_4609.jpeg


In English the above means… the menu said chicken for 1 was $39 and chicken for 2 was $78. Given chicken for 1 was $39 it is surplus to requirements for the menu to then say 2 was $78 when 2 x 39 is 78, it’s not like they are knocking anything off. I quipped that I bet chicken for 3 would be 117 (3 x 39) and then a couple of people related that to our 115 charges hence the $115 response.
 
The below equation should help explain.

View attachment 122040


In English the above means… the menu said chicken for 1 was $39 and chicken for 2 was $78. Given chicken for 1 was $39 it is surplus to requirements for the menu to then say 2 was $78 when 2 x 39 is 78, it’s not like they are knocking anything off. I quipped that I bet chicken for 3 would be 117 (3 x 39) and then a couple of people related that to our 115 charges hence the $115 response.
Un-whoosh!
And there we have it. Plain and simple.
 
The below equation should help explain.

View attachment 122040


In English the above means… the menu said chicken for 1 was $39 and chicken for 2 was $78. Given chicken for 1 was $39 it is surplus to requirements for the menu to then say 2 was $78 when 2 x 39 is 78, it’s not like they are knocking anything off. I quipped that I bet chicken for 3 would be 117 (3 x 39) and then a couple of people related that to our 115 charges hence the $115 response.
yeah but in truth it's 129/130 ;)
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.