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

[bigA]

Why do I get the feeling that the Times has decided to release this biased piece to deflect from Liverpool & Standard Chartered

Yes indeed. It's the old "it's a good time to bury bad news" bit by the red top biased media. Liverpool FC have put their deflector shields on full after today's Standard Chartered revelations and this news has "leaked" out to shift the focus and guilt away from themselves.

 

[Revolver]

No. Unlikely to do so.

It's the one problem I have with City (besides never buying a LB or someone to help Rodri).

We're excellent on the pitch, and with these legal challenges.

However City's PR is woeful.

By being silent and not communicating clearly, they continually allow the club to be battered with misinformation and lies on a daily basis.

Agree about the PR.

Whilst some people on here are confident that City are in the right by June 4 2025 we may be on page 6544 of this thread.

And due to the boards silence the cartels lackeys in the press will be making hay and us supporters will know nothing.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Worth a watch, even though it’s Sly Sports News.

Video.

View attachment 121248

Man City 'launch legal action' against Premier League over financial rules ahead of their own 115-charge hearing

Man City taking legal action against Premier League, The Times reports, over leagues rules regarding valuations of sponsorships; under regulations introduced in 2021 all deals with companies associated with clubs owners must be independently assessed to be of fair market value

www.skysports.com

The sub headline is false though. I thought this case was about new rules brought in by the PL this year not 2021. Our case is about discrimination in the way we are dealt with by the PL. Do SKY mention that anywhere.

 

[mscenterh750]

Alice Cooper?

Pretty certain Megadeth covered it too and was in a film. I can hear Dave Mustang singing it as I’m writing this reply.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

No mention on the BBC football site,what's up with the coonts.

They only like running negative stories about us

 

[chedinho]

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.

I thought the same.
I think it’s more about being hindered at every turn and losing money because of it.

 

[MillisleBlue]

Take aim at the big dog? You’d better not miss.

CTIFD

 

[give it to gordon]

Anyone think the dippers have leaked this to try and get the news away from their gun running bank sponsor ?

 

[eyalluvitt]

The more I think about it and what @The Stockport Iniesta said the more I think it's the rags supporting us in this case. If we were to win this case and prove that the Associated Party Transaction rules are complete wank, the multi-club ownership model would flourish and we'd be able to move players between the CFG for whatever fees we want.

Sir Jim has already stolen a number of our executives and has shown a desire to get into the multi-club ownership business. Would definitely make sense that him and the rags side with us to get rid of APT rules.

​

That would be Nice

 

[Bald fraud]

The more I think about it and what @The Stockport Iniesta said the more I think it's the rags supporting us in this case. If we were to win this case and prove that the Associated Party Transaction rules are complete wank, the multi-club ownership model would flourish and we'd be able to move players between the CFG for whatever fees we want.

Sir Jim has already stolen a number of our executives and has shown a desire to get into the multi-club ownership business. Would definitely make sense that him and the rags side with us to get rid of APT rules.

​

More likely they’d fuck us over then copy everything we’ve built