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

[M18CTID]

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?

You probably don't realise it but you've actually nailed it with that post. Whatever they feed to journalists will be loaded with bias. That doesn't make them good sources.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

The email to the clubs said Cliff would also send something to the PL, iirc.

 

[Vic]

Only did 3 years at a sports law firm and instead now is a well connected legal journalist?

You're right, let's believe Martin Samuel instead whose qualifications seem to be "says what I prefer to hear".



This guy is Associate Professor at LSE Law School and Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law. He says essentially the same as Stefan and The Lawyer.

Does he explain why City think the APT rules are now void?

 

[Tim of the Oak]

Yep. From what I can gather, City were intent on tackling the February 24 amendment to the APT rules first and foremost and we won on that so the Premier League can go and get fucked.

It’s gone from city have won on a couple of trivial technicalities to the Prem calling an emergency meeting, within the space of the week.

 

[BobbyBoy]

Because we know what their end-game is. They might be 'good' for him but they're using him as a mouthpiece for their anti-City agenda.

That is by definition an excellent source. You want to know where the other side is at, then follow Panja. Nobody reads him or Delaney and expects to see any supportive or even impartial of City. Ziegler is probably the only one I'd define as impartial, the rest are all clearly one side of the other. Samuel has a piece out in 20 minutes the other day, so did Lawton. That again is a great source but the other side would say they're a mouthpiece for the City agenda.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Employed by the same employer, as per LinkedIn

Can’t see that mate. Where about?

Having looked he is due a small correction because he does have an educational qualification in the jurisdiction, namely an MA in 2019, although in International Relations which is interesting because he was practising in law at the time and therefore it’s surprising his MA wasn’t in law (unless I’m missing something with International Relations).

 

[Vic]

Yep. From what I can gather, City were intent on tackling the February 24 amendment to the APT rules first and foremost and we won on that so the Premier League can go and get fucked.

Not just the amendments. The rules themselves are unlawful.

 

[M23 Citizen]

After 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.

That it was found that any part of the APT rules or practices were unlawful is all that matters.

That it was found that interest free shareholders loans are unlawful could end up being huge for the league and very impactful for a few clubs.

Whether we lost many of the other things we took them to court on is neither here nor there really. The main thing is that we’ve made the PL look like a dodgy, secretive, underhand and untrustworthy organisation of shysters who have brought in unlawful rules and allowed unlawful practices to go on that benefits or lets off some clubs and not others.

It’s not about a 11:9 win either way, or even 17:3 against.

People are slowly but surely discovering that the PL are not fit to run the top league in this country. That’s where we’ve won.

 

[BlueMojito]

Thanks.

Do we assume that's the whole of the City letter quoted?

Perhaps they only published the polite version :-)

 

[Damocles]

You were commenting on his ability to analyse the law, not his abilities as a journalist, at which he appears to be decent.

But he didn't DO any real analysis of the law. He stated the facts of the judgement and then said "here's what a bunch of experienced people think".

And besides, 3 years of sports law makes him one billion percent more qualified and experienced to comment on the judgement than every single working football journalist in this country combined.