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
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
But any potential regulator would need experience of football at the highest level and is therefore likely to have skin in the game.Lobbying is ok, provided the regulator has no skin in the game.
City are paying more than you have calculated
From a Foi request
The following table details the basic rent paid by MCFC for the most recent financial year, Apr 14 – Mar 15.
View attachment 134906
On the 250 year rental income, previous years have been less, and have been negotiated up, if that rental figure remained the same over the remainder of the 250 year rental income, that would be over £1bill the council gets off City. Maybe there will come a point in the future when the club decides it’s want to by the stadium for substantially less than £1bill it will have to pay out in rent to the council?
Matt Diablo
Well-Known Member
Well they gave evidence in our favour so makes senseMaybe they're going to vote with us to have soft loans interest bearing but only from the vote date....get it in under the wire and all that?
That’s a bit like saying a magistrate cannot try a motoring case if he’s a driver or a ref can’t be neutral if he played the game.But any potential regulator would need experience of football at the highest level and is therefore likely to have skin in the game.
You have to draw the line somewhere on what constitutes bias. The courts or arbitration is the backstop.
You can bet your life that City will lobby the new regulator when the time comes.
It's ok. They'll be able to claim back £40m for the arrangement fees.
What are Chelsea up to? In some ways you have to admire Chelsea…they do stuff that we can’t understand and yet somehow it seems to work.
P
P
PPT
Guest
Yep. When all the planning permissions and permits we need to build and expand have been approved.On the 250 year rental income, previous years have been less, and have been negotiated up, if that rental figure remained the same over the remainder of the 250 year rental income, that would be over £1bill the council gets off City. Maybe there will come a point in the future when the club decides it’s want to by the stadium for substantially less than £1bill it will have to pay out in rent to the council?
My view hasn't changed at all. It is best illustrated by my view on costs - as I explained yesterday, I don't believe the PL will pay more than 10-20% of City's costs and it is most likely that the parties agree to pay their own costs.No fan of Panja but that's a bit of a cheap shot bearing in mind @slbsn himself was saying the judgment was a score draw or a slight City win until recently.
Have to own up when you get something wrong. I do it all the time :)
You've missed the point on Panja. Panja promoted Leaf's original view as well considered when it was an immediate reaction. When I pointed that out, Panja tried to make out I was discrediting Leaf's position which I was not. I was merely pointing out it was limited because he couldn't have read it. Now Leaf has seemingly considered things and appears to say things are consequential, Panja should promote that view as equally as the provisional view.
I don't agree with either of Leaf's view myself. I believe the shareholder loan stuff is largely irrelevant, that APT is not null and void, that even if it is the teams will pass a replacement in line with the original APT (now found to be lawful) and that the key finding is that you can put the all the 2024 changes in the bin as unlawful (as City warned the PL and clubs in October 2021).
manimanc
Well-Known Member
In the meantime utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and chelsea spend more than us but don't challenge for anything."We must stop team's spending what they like to get an unbeatable team and create an uncompetitive league"
In the context, it's obviously aimed at City and curbing our spending power
These teams waste more time and energy trying to drag our name through shit and accusing us of wrongdoings, maybe if they put the same energy onto the pitch they might surprise themselves and others.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,068
My view hasn't changed at all. It is best illustrated by my view on costs - as I explained yesterday, I don't believe the PL will pay more than 10-20% of City's costs and it is most likely that the parties agree to pay their own costs.
You've missed the point on Panja. Panja promoted Leaf's original view as well considered when it was an immediate reaction. When I pointed that out, Panja tried to make out I was discrediting Leaf's position which I was not. I was merely pointing out it was limited because he couldn't have read it. Now Leaf has seemingly considered things and appears to say things are consequential, Panja should promote that view as equally as the provisional view.
I don't agree with either of Leaf's view myself. I believe the shareholder loan stuff is largely irrelevant, that APT is not null and void, that even if it is the teams will pass a replacement in line with the original APT (now found to be lawful) and that the key finding is that you can put the all the 2024 changes in the bin as unlawful (as City warned the PL and clubs in October 2021).
Fair enough, we will see in the next couple of weeks, I suppose.
Just thought lawyers engaging with journalists about legal cases was punching down, which is something I'm not keen on.
Anyway, you can punch me on legal matters as much as you want, and frequently do :) but keep it up, I will always be grateful to you, @petrusha and @Chris in London for educating me about law and sports law over the last eighteen months much more than I had ever thought I would have needed. It has all certainly helped me shape positions on these cases that I am comfortable with.
And probably wrong about :)