The club have conducted themselves correctly throughout and Stefan has got the big call wrong - he's has rubbished Martin Samuel and contradicted City's legal spokesman. Needs to wind his neck in now.Perhaps not as he has been very busy reading the whole 176 pages of the report and commented in detail on a lot of it. It's not his job to put forward a pro-City stance, that is the club's responsibility. People should lay off Stefan, he's been staunch in defending us (based on facts) and they should be more critical of the silence from City for much of the last 8 months.
Pin this post^It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.
Only one party was found to have enacted unlawfully, has to rewrite its rule book possibly pay compensation.
That party isn't City.
I hope they go nuclear on all issues.Thoughts on City seeking damages for the blocked sponsorships?
It’s possible for Stephan to be objective AND a City fan. Have a think.
Martin Samuel's article is total nonsense though. Who do you think reads and agrees with that piece? Nobody outside BM. Pointless.I've been disappointed in his mutual response considering he's a Blue. Martin Samuel's gave us better support.
Or they want a post that they can read in 10 seconds and which supports their view.....The compulsive need for media outlets (and some fans) to categorise a 175-page judgment into a binary "Win" or "Lose" statement which completely guts it of all context and nuance is a big part of the problem here. In fact, it's symptomatic of the way society has evolved. Nobody has time for detail, they just want a sound bite that explains everything in 10 seconds. Legal proceedings don't allow for that level of oversimplification. I can see that part of the reason Stefan is getting criticised (unfairly, in my view), is because he refuses to give into these false dichotomies. It's never as simple, never as black and white, as most layman want it to be. He has gone for the term 'score draw' to appease this crowd because he knows neither of the extreme scenarios (win/lose) are accurate descriptions.
Who "won" is simply a PR exercise that carries absolutely no substance. What does carry substance is the actions that the respective parties will now have to take. And we know the Premier League now have work to do for their rules to comply with law. That work will be even more difficult given the impact it will have on a number of clubs in the league. No, the rules aren't completely buried forever, but if they come back it will have to be in a different form. This will have also impacted them reputationally in the eyes of some, but whether that will come to matter or not remains to be seen.
City, on the other hand, may now have recourse to seek damages. And perhaps their objective was to trash APT forever (I'm not sure it was) in which case they haven't achieved that. Or perhaps prove in a court some level of discrimination in a way that can support their charges in the other case. The extent of how pleased they will be will depend upon whatever objective they had in mind, and all we can do is speculate.
Lord Pannik’s opening line on the 115!Maybe YOU should be the one to find evidence of the thing you said happened, happening.
Probably they've got history for taking the limelight away from anyone but themselvesApparently the rags regime is meeting today to discuss the future of ten bob. Wonder if they will sack him to get the pl shitshow off the front page
Fair enough although would you agree that the club is happier with the result than the PL?I'd say no. But other views are available.
The poor Premier League could only afford “drunken small claims lawyers”.Some lawyer must have put their arse into the wind for this action by the club.