Think it is pretty clear I don't respond to every negative attack. So not sure this negative attack is justified either. But perhaps that is the spotlight talking.
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
TheThirdDeano
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,764
Am I the only one who doesn’t give a shit about any of this personality drama? or the seemingly unending discourse sounding it.
Cool. I'll advise Kroenke to pay himself the money he owes himself. Maybe he can do a PayPal transfer from his Handelsbank account to his Coutts account?Jog on and sort the interest on your loan out.
It's kind of moot anyway as the whole FFP ecosystem changes next year anyway so let's see what that looks like.
St.Pauli support
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 5,126
On the planet of lawyers which is fundamentally different to our street wise daily life of 'right and wrong'.What they consider a win is irrelevant.
On what planet has a governing body won an independent tribunal where it is found to have abused its position of dominance by implementing rules that are unlawful, unfair and unreasonable?
Lawyers haggle about wordings and definitions of written words (and those parts of written words that fit their case) to make a logic construction of their case, in a very theoretical approach. How that works out in practice is a completely different matter.
Of course PL have to declare 'significant wins' (whatever that means) and any legal experts would - on that planet - basically agree.
Not reading the last hundred posts, but I was trying to work out why City say the Rules are null and void (not a phrase in the judgment).
The overall conclusions (592-602) list the challenges where City succeeded and those ("all others") that failed, which sounds like they just have to tinker with the Rules.
But p. 164 is the judgment (with its ABD mistake - should be AND):
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE:
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
So I presume that if they're unlawful, they are all null and void.
The overall conclusions (592-602) list the challenges where City succeeded and those ("all others") that failed, which sounds like they just have to tinker with the Rules.
But p. 164 is the judgment (with its ABD mistake - should be AND):
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE:
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
So I presume that if they're unlawful, they are all null and void.
Last edited:
There is many on here as qualified as stefan to interpret the legalities as much as stefan is yet they choose not to do it on talk radio and for me i trust citys legal counsel to interpret it better than a legal expert on talksport whether he is a city fan or not, like i said i am not doubting stefans credentials what i am doubting is where he chooses to exercise that expertise.I'd answer that it's highly likely that the odd appearance on Talksport is incredibly unlikely to outweigh the high credibility and career opportunities he'd get from retaining his credibility as a legal counsel and football finance expert by outlining opinions as he sees them based on his years of experience and access to facts.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However they aren't entitled to their own facts. I'd trust someone like Stefan to interpret these far better than most, and certainly far better than most posters here, myself included.
However what do I know, I'm just an Arsenal fan!
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 27,939
The Premier League clearly want to add DISCRIMINATORY to UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE - the very strong words used in the tribuneral judgement.
Law courts and tribunerals take a dim view of messing up a second time.
What bright spark thought it was OK to discount loans in 2021-2024 and not sponsorships in the same time period?
Honestly Masters should be sacked on the spot for approving such patent bollox so quickly.
Law courts and tribunerals take a dim view of messing up a second time.
What bright spark thought it was OK to discount loans in 2021-2024 and not sponsorships in the same time period?
Honestly Masters should be sacked on the spot for approving such patent bollox so quickly.
Last edited:
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,561
- Team supported
- Manchester City
It’s the best they could muster in the circumstances.
Damage limitation despite the clear and obvious failings of their case.
Ok meaningless and distracting from the big issue - their win(s) being the bits that City weren't challenging.
Churchlawtonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 14,825
Has Stefan thown his rattle out then? That's a real shame if he has, I genuinely hope he hasn't left the forum as I valued his opinions greatly.
But not everyone has to agree with him all the while. It's all about opinions.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
No it isn’t.It's all about opinions.