StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,128
- Team supported
- City
That's not actually what I'm pretending. Quite clearly there are major differences between APD and retain and transfer but from 1948 onwards they appear to have been convinced that the system was untenable, as did the players' union. That's why players who "caused a fuss" and their clubs got a fee but players who were not prepared to make trouble did not. The union was not prepared for expensive legal action and seemed to acquiesce. The big difference is that there was no court case noo tribunal or the like until Eastham in 1963. I think there are similarities with sponsorship deals, RPD and APD now, but these tend to concern UEFA rather than the PL until now. UEFA's and the PL's position on sponsorship appears to go beyond the rights of a football authority, and I don't believe FMV has been used to cause City difficulty. Nor has it caused, for instance, Leicester City problems. In the case of PSG, though it was used to reduce a totally absurd deal (in UEFA's/FMV terms) to a marginally less absurd deal. What I'm arguing is that the football authorities use their position and regulations to obstruct and "waste time" before the court action. In the near past two (or more!) seasons out of the CL would have really caused City problems and now a couple of seasons in the Northern Premier could destroy us before the courts can put the matter right.
