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

[WRicko]

Honestly no idea what's going on

The database things seems odd

 

[jimharri]

So Tariq Panja thinks we have achieved a small or minor victory at considerable expense whilst Mike Keegan thinks we have won a significant victory. If the judgement has been made, then for the purposes of transparency it should be published in due course to stop these fucking clowns from speculating. Any publication of the decision should, imho, either come from the panel directly or be a joint statement between Manchester City and the Premier League.

Here marks the end of my 1000 post!

Panja is one of the cabal, with Harris, Delaney, Castles, Roan, Glendenning, Jordan, Carragher, Neville and countless others

 

[mac]

I noticed a report on talkshite this morning saying the Premier League has had to pay around 50 million on legal fees I think over the last 2 years. It seemed a bit strange but I thought they are trying to get sympathy and paint us as Evil City .

 

[malg]

So Tariq Panja thinks we have achieved a small or minor victory at considerable expense whilst Mike Keegan thinks we have won a significant victory. If the judgement has been made, then for the purposes of transparency it should be published in due course to stop these fucking clowns from speculating. Any publication of the decision should, imho, either come from the panel directly or be a joint statement between Manchester City and the Premier League.

Here marks the end of my 1000 post!

1,000 posts. RAG.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If the rules are already in place and we are suing because they are in place could it not be interpreted that we have lost or at least not won much if vote on amending rules as been dropped wouldn’t you have vote to amend if we had won so that they would fit with what they should now say according to the court sorry that probably doesn’t make sense

The problem is that we don't know on what basis City challenged the new rules. There appears to be 3 potential elements we may have challenged:

1. The PL deciding who is an "associated party".
2. The PL (or its nominees) deciding on what constitutes "fair value".
3. The concept of a deal database that isn't confidential.

We could just have challenged point 3 or all of 1, 2 & 3. If we challenged all of those, we might have won one or two points but not another.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Panja doesn't even understand what City were challenging. He says we challenged the APT rules. Wrong. We challenged a small amendment to the rules. Panja can't even get his first sentence correct.

 

[cheekybids]

Why not? Its too big an issue not to be discussed.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

Why not? Its too big an issue not to be discussed.

Kaveh Knowsodall. Wrong again.

 

[Shazza458]

exactly what I was thinking - why would two of the most credible journalists about jump the gun & put their name to something if they didn't genuinely believe there was any truth to it?

Afew on here have seen a couple tweets from Stefan, & shat their pants.

Why are the Times letting him publish an article like that if it’s not true
I thought they were meant to be reputable

 

[Gordyola]

As I understand it, it’s not the apt rules we have challenged the pl on, it was an amendment to the rules that was made in February, not like sly sports to misrepresent us…

It was widening the scope of what an associated party is in even above what international accounting standard define