Because it says "The tribunal found these changes constituted a breach of competition law" but does not say that that is why the Tribunal said the Rules are unlawful.
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
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,993
It’s insinuated in that post I replied to.
Seems there is a collective effort from some to downplay what we have achieved with this case.
Think it’s more tempering it to be fair. Like I said, all depends what happens next, there’s good and bad in there, it’s all about where they lead to.
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,959
We’ll only see how big our achievements are when the rules are adapted.It’s insinuated in that post I replied to.
Seems there is a collective effort from some to downplay what we have achieved with this case.
It could be big or it could be negligible.
I’m hoping for the former.
Saying something is a breach of competition law IS saying they are unlawful? If something breaches a law it's unlawful?Because it says "The tribunal found these changes constituted a breach of competition law" but does not say that that is why the Tribunal said the Rules are unlawful.
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 18,373
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
You'll catch a few with thatAfter taking the day to wait for people qualified to analyse this to analyse this, the idea that City won some major win and Stefan was downplaying it is clearly wrong.
Having read The Lawyer's take on it, I'm surprised he thinks it was even a "score draw" frankly.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Agreed 100%. It was David Gill who turned the UEFA football governance talks from stemming debt, to stopping investment. They can claim it was just coincidence that City became the richest club in the world 12 months previously, all they want. We know exactly what Gill's game was.The question as to why FFP was introduced at this time when Chelsea was blowing money around like no tomorrow long before Manchester City's new owners, also why did the so-called elite clubs not really have any rules in place for club's to reduce debt by a given time period or face punishment. Since FFP how much debt has grown at the so-called elite clubs and nothing has ever been said or done?
Manchester City and our owners only want a fair fight and rightly so, If tomorrow football dies on its feet and the money falls out of the bottomless pit, how many clubs can say they are ok and can still play football and trade as their football club is debt free, also does not owe the banks money or has loans on assets and will be finished.
FFP was not an idea of saving football clubs from going under or for fans and saving grassroots football, Football was fucked long before Manchester City's new owners, DEBT was out of control and just look at the state of the so-called elite club's balance sheets and their Debt,
Nobody in Footall wants to hear about the mess these debt-riddle clubs are in, But once they start to speak about how Bad Manchester City is for football it's all forgotten and it is Manchester City cheating and ruining football.
Let's have it out once and for all, books on the table by everybody let's see who will come to the table first, Here is the chance to clean up football once and for all and stop lying about Manchester City cheating and breaking the rules
Too much water has passed under the bridge, & I for one will never trust any of the Red Top Mafia or the PL in its current guise. We've got all the evidence we need to show that self governance doesn't work.
The quicker IREF is introduced, the better for English football.
I don’t think there’s much bad at all tbh. We knew we wasn’t going to win every single point and I doubt we even gave certain supposed failures a second thought.Think it’s more tempering it to be fair. Like I said, all depends what happens next, there’s good and bad in there, it’s all about where they lead to.
We were successful where we needed to be and no amount of tempering will change that.
marco
Well-Known Member
i seriously think this guy needs help, maybe he's suffering some sort of mental health issue, he must go to bed thinking of city and wake up thinking of city and remain thinking of city all day then same over again and again, god knows what he's going to be like when were cleared of the 115 but i do think he needs advice from a shrink or some other professionalNick Harris/ Magic Hat, howling at the moon tonight on Twitter. One of his claims is some city executives will have to fall on their swords for the failures in the APT case
a) it is irrelevant what I think so no idea why you are still banging on about itDid you catch Samuel on The Game podcast earlier Damo? Sounds like pretty emphatic evidence that Stefan, Christopher and you seem to have got this verdict seriously wrong.
b) it is also irrelevant what Samuel thinks
c) at least I have read the judgment - Samuel could not have when he wrote his OTT piece and went on the podcast