They can award themselves a runners up trophy like the Dippers wanted.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Come on now, they’ve shared the last 34 PL titles with us, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Blackburn and Leicester.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
That could well be the case. We'll have to wait and see.As someone who is just catching up..
Am I correct to summarise - that the APT rules need to be voted back through (with a majority) to be legally implemented, but in doing so they have to include share holder loans?
If so the 9 clubs with shareholders loans will likely be reassessed? So basically this won't be voted back in, unless there is an agreement that prior loans are excluded?
Good luck getting that of the tarquinsThey can award themselves a runners up trophy like the Dippers wanted.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Unless it’s proven to be fraud then according to English Law which the PL state they are under then it’s 6 years sunshine I would expect City to not use that as they have irrefutable evidence of no wrong doing Unlike Arsenal who have been cheatingYes but it will be applied differently by the Panel as there won't be any time-barring in place.
Yeah that’s easy, City argued the whole APT system was unfair and the tribunal rejected that completely.
Did they though? The club argue it.
cleavers
Moderator
Not a chance, I read one page, go to the next and there's 2 more already. I've started leaving it, and when I go back, just read the last 2, by which time, there's 4 to read.As someone who is just catching up..
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Funnily enough that happened to us.None as they haven't broken any rules that were in place at the time.
You know, goalposts getting moved everytime we complied with the rules.
I thought they were against the amendments not APT in principle…but I’m a KFA in all this, my missus is the solicitor but for some reason she wants to watch Emily in Paris instead of reading through the judgement for me and explaining it in layman’s terms.Did they though? The club argue it.