City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[give it to gordon]

Did the first three candidates not get through the vetting process carried out by LFC and Utd?

I thought they were offered the job two said no immediately and one quit after 6 weeks I think

 

[Vic]

It specifically mentions (twice) that the tribunal found the rules breached competition law?

https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/

View attachment 134421

I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)

 

[BobbyBoy]

I'd fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Panja's main sources are Gill & Parry, plus probably Nick Harris. That's not "good sources".

Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?

 

[bluemanchester]

did they Batter him?

No, they took him to a dark plaice

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I thought they were offered the job two said no immediately and one quit after 6 weeks I think

I think the details of that and also clattenbergs sudden mid season departure to Saudi are all stories yet to come out.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Is this the Stefan Borson thread, or am I in the wrong place? =)

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Not sure why everyone is piling on to Stefan to be honest. It's not cut and dry, it very rarely is. City wanted the February amendments flagged as illegal and they got that but I also believe the premier league are right in that only changes are necessary to make them comply. Whether they can get those changes in is the question, I'm not convinced they can so their only option is to remove them for now. For instance the 10 day turnaround looks like it's a non starter to me, it's impossible to judge a complex sponsor within 10 days, it could take 12 months like they did with our sponsors. A limit is needed but it can't take long so it's a catch 22 situation for them.

Whatever the PL do it will weaken the rules anyway. For instance they have to give access to their databank data which is a massive win for City as they can then look at everyone else deals and actually maximise all the sponsors around that. This alone is a massive win and worth it' weight in gold to the right data analysts.

 

[blueste41]

I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)

It says exactly what I shared in the screen grab!

 

[mattcity5]

Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?

And let's face it, if Panja doesn't write how his sources like, they stop being sources for him.

 

[shevtheblue]

The real win here is, as Stefan alludes, PL have been shown up to not being able to sail their ship themselves. They make rules on a whim at the guidance of chief competitors that favour them alone, and now those rules have been proven to be unlawful. Not sure whether the legal team will be able to use this at the 115 hearing, but if they are i'm sure they'll make good use of it to show how fucking useless and incompetent the PL really are. It also adds another string to the bow for an independent regulator for the PL, which IMO is actually not a good thing for City but probably *slightly* better than having this corrupt cunts in charge.