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

[Bald fraud]

All makes sense masters not turning up now and they wouldn’t even hand Kyle the trophy he had to pick it up himself from a table. These arseholes want us gone!

 

[argyle]

I'm actually a bit worried by this news. If it's a basic argument that related parties can dictate sponsorship fees, which aren't subject to market value, it does seems a bit underhand (surely we're past the stage of needing that now). No doubt that there is discrimination due to it coming into play when Newcastle got taken over by the Saudi's but will that hold up in court..I'm not sure.

Who does the market value assessment on the PLs behalf, is it truly independent - I don't know!?

Maybe it's a tactic to overwhelm the PL from the other charges.

Must admit I'm getting a bit sick of all the legalities. I truly hope we win this and the 115 charges case and be done with it all.

Let's put it to bed City.

We're not challenging the rules on related parties. It's the rules on associated parties that were made in Feb.

They give the PL very broad powers to stop sponsorships with clubs on very thin grounds of association.

City must have already been blocked from sponsorship or a renegotiation on some as we're asking for damages as a result of these new rules.

 

[thismeansfour]

Each to their own and all that, but why do people go on the likes of rawk to then come back on here and complain about what they have read? You aren't going to get a shred of sense over there so why put yourself through it?

 

[GRB]

Surely a noose round the magic hat is imminent?

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Does anyone know if this will be a public hearing or behind closed doors? And in what sort of court/tribunal will the case be heard?

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Get Gary The Child Cotterill in! We need him to say Manchester Shitty a lot like he’s in a Primary School playground.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I'm actually a bit worried by this news. If it's a basic argument that related parties can dictate sponsorship fees, which aren't subject to market value, it does seems a bit underhand (surely we're past the stage of needing that now). No doubt that there is discrimination due to it coming into play when Newcastle got taken over by the Saudi's but will that hold up in court..I'm not sure.

Who does the market value assessment on the PLs behalf, is it truly independent - I don't know!?

Maybe it's a tactic to overwhelm the PL from the other charges.

Must admit I'm getting a bit sick of all the legalities. I truly hope we win this and the 115 charges case and be done with it all.

Let's put it to bed City.

I wouldn't worry. It's a cultural thing - the way we do business is basically with respect for sponsors and businesses local to the region, so when they put in an offer to sponsor us, it's disrespectful for us then to invite competition from other sponsors for competitive rates.

The new rules dictate that's what we should be doing unless I'm mistaken. Demonstrating that sponsorship deals are competitive amongst other offers. So if I'm right on that theory, I'm not majorly surprised we're pissed off by the implementation of the new AP rules and instantly ready to fight against them.

 

[ninjamonkey]

the fkn goon squad

In this last week, I've stumbled upon 3 seperate things that inform me the word goon or gooning now has a very, very different meaning to the kids of today.

Am I being thick, or does this seemingly have no bearing on the 115 charges?

None of the charges relate to the rules we're challenging, because those rules weren't even brought in until years after the most recent of the charges.

The article in the Times tries to link the two, and claims that a victory in this hearing could give us a strong defence for the 115 hearing, but I don't see how?

Even if we managed to get these new rules chucked out as unlawful (big if), and even if we could make the argument that some of the rules we're alleged to have broken are unlawful on the same principle (even bigger if), it wouldn't be a valid justification for breaking them after the fact.

From the information provided there doesn't appear to be any direct correlation but we've got incredibly limited information about either case so nobody really knows.

To the people living in fairy land that think a behemoth like the premier league has a solitary trainee lawyer on their legal team dealing with everything, there's suggestions this is to tie them up with other issues to detract from the 115 charges prep work like they don't have access to an army of the best legal aid around. It's one of the more comical misinformed suggestions.

 

[HelloCity]

Does anyone know if this will be a public hearing or behind closed doors? And in what sort of court/tribunal will the case be heard?

Trial by combat.

 

[Revolver]

Another legal issue involving our club in dispute with the cartel.

Great news as you can never have too many court cases.

Just wish when I was younger instead of reading Match and Shoot etc I’d also subscribed to Accounting Today.

So I can fully enjoy modern football.