bluetonium
Well-Known Member
Just reading through the finding now in a bit more detail (I mean, what happens on the pitch is nothing compared to the excitement of these courtroom battles, eh?) and, I have to say, I can't read this any other way than we absolutely wiped the floor with them. They have to literally go back and increase value they placed on two city sponsorship deals.
There is no other way to read it. We won every major point it seems.
They've not followed their own rules. Those rules were discriminatory and were specifically applied in an unfair and discriminating way to Manchester City. They've reached competition law.
Ignore the bbc trying to get a punch in with things like city didn't win all their arguments, they're already on the canvas and the court has been completed, they just don't know it yet.
Whilst we should absolutely treat the '115' case separately, this can't hurt either. How inept have they been to suggest something so obviously in violation of the law? And this was supposed to be a refinement of the previous rules which they want to do us under. Plus, revaluing those two sponsorship deals.... They may not be relevant at all to the other case but again, if these are shown to have been regarded incorrectly by the self appointed authority, even discriminatory, then I bet the others reek of it also.
There is no other way to read it. We won every major point it seems.
They've not followed their own rules. Those rules were discriminatory and were specifically applied in an unfair and discriminating way to Manchester City. They've reached competition law.
Ignore the bbc trying to get a punch in with things like city didn't win all their arguments, they're already on the canvas and the court has been completed, they just don't know it yet.
Whilst we should absolutely treat the '115' case separately, this can't hurt either. How inept have they been to suggest something so obviously in violation of the law? And this was supposed to be a refinement of the previous rules which they want to do us under. Plus, revaluing those two sponsorship deals.... They may not be relevant at all to the other case but again, if these are shown to have been regarded incorrectly by the self appointed authority, even discriminatory, then I bet the others reek of it also.
