You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
You don't understand why we're challenging a rule brought in by the PL in Feb 24 that will likely substantially affect our current and future income generation through sponsorship so that we cannot spend any money on transfers that doesn't affect any of our direct Competitors?Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something
What exactly don't you understand?
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,340
It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.
It seems probable that the club’s allegation that these rules were specifically targeted at City is what was behind the recent disclosure order requiring the PL to disclose all their emails etc relating to Manchester City.
The interesting feature of that particular direction is that it came so close before the hearing that started last week. It strikes me as probable that the direction was made at a much earlier stage and was appealed, with the outcome of the case coming shortly before the arbitration.
mad hatter?They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.
Because the new rules would leave us having most of our sponsorship deals being valued by a group of rival clubs as to what they believe "fair value" is. They could choose not to sanction commercial deals we consider crucial to growing the business and devalue a 10 year sponsorship deal for us which we are stuck with as opposed to waving through American owned clubs sponsorship deals with US based companies. Think we have lost all Trust in the process that would mean this would happen fairly.Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,582
They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.
Sounds like a few of our visitors from there.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,582
It seems probable that the club’s allegation that these rules were specifically targeted at City is what was behind the recent disclosure order requiring the PL to disclose all their emails etc relating to Manchester City.
The interesting feature of that particular direction is that it came so close before the hearing that started last week. It strikes me as probable that the direction was made at a much earlier stage and was appealed, with the outcome of the case coming shortly before the arbitration.
lol that’s a non-cooperation surely…
Absolutely correct, but the emphasis or lead argument is influential. I can only go by others’ comments as I have not seen City’s briefing paper. Comments talk about our view that the rules differentiate unfairly between M.E. and elsewhere but don’t talk about direct business factors.The point in proceedings of this nature is that you argue absolutely everything, leaving no stone unturned. We unquestionably will be basing our case on "business grounds', but that doesn't preclude us from running other arguments, too. You can take it on trust that, if that's how Lord Pannick and his colleagues are playing it, they know what they're doing (which doesn't necessarily mean they'll win).
The point is that, sometimes, the court/panel/tribunal or whatever might not be convinced to the necessary degree by the main argument alone, but what you refer to as the "more nebulous" arguments act cumulatively to push one over the line.
Yes you are missing your red shirt forum.Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something
Absolutely correct, but the emphasis or lead argument is influential. I can only go by others’ comments as I have not seen City’s briefing paper. Comments talk about our view that the rules differentiate unfairly between M.E. and elsewhere but don’t talk about direct business factors.
What's been produced so far is a pitifully small summary of a far longer document, summarised for public consumption by bad-faith journalists who aren't qualified to undertake the task and who are in the pocket of direct rival clubs who want to see us kneecapped as a result of the exercise currently under way. The emphasis is what these cunts reckon will be of greatest interest to the stultifyingly ignorant sheep supporting those rivals. IMO, nothing whatsoever can be inferred from it.