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

[cheekybids]

Basically go against City or we’ll fuck you over.

I think the tock is ticking!

 

[foggy1974]

If Masters & the cartel manage to get these unlawful rules through, does that mean we've got to go back to an independent panel which could take another 6 months & stops us increasing revenues enough to prevent us signing the replacements we need.

It feels as though the cnuts are trying to replicate the dragging out of the Newcastle takeover.

 

[Salford_Blue]

That article is quite something when you read it. Basically arguing that unlawful rules are actually justified if they hinder a team you dislike.

I've only seen the headline, but I thought surely he doesn't mean this.

You've just confirmed he did.

What an absolutely bizarre angle for Wallace to go with.

 

[cheekybids]

If Masters & the cartel manage to get these unlawful rules through, does that mean we've got to go back to an independent panel which could take another 6 months & stops us increasing revenues enough to prevent us signing the replacements we need.

It feels as though the cnuts are trying to replicate the dragging out of the Newcastle takeover.

& the compensation increases.

 

[foggy1974]

& the compensation increases.

It seems the cartel don't care about that

 

[cheekybids]

It seems the cartel don't care about that

Bankruptcy would suit them….

 

[Ysabel 123]

The last game before Kevin Keegan was Oxford United and the gate was 10,004. So, we can safely say there were less than 10,000 Geordies there. Unless Oxford have a large number of Geordie fans!

In a one team City!

 

[halfcenturyup]

https://archive.ph/Q42tj

Mehh. Who cares? City's position is either legally correct or it isn't. And that is nothing to do with Wallace or the other 19 clubs, tbh.

 

[cheekybids]

Mehh. Who cares? City's position is either legally correct or it isn't. And that is nothing to do with Wallace or the other 19 clubs, tbh.

He got a lot wrong, it’s possible absolutely everything, I’ll go back & check the day & date tallies.

I’d imagine the premier league are expecting defeat so that’s why the client journalist can make things up knowing it won’t happen & big bad City continues.

 

[halfcenturyup]

He got a lot wrong, it’s possible absolutely everything, I’ll go back & check the day & date tallies.

I’d imagine the premier league are expecting defeat so that’s why the client journalist can make things up knowing it won’t happen & big bad City continues.

The basic premise of the article - that there are no financial controls if City "win" this case - , is nonsense. PSR and RPT will still be in force, at least until challenged.

If I was being overly analytical, I could pick holes in each paragraph. From the horrible grammar in the first paragraph ("– measures City have expended considerable resources trying to explain why their fellow clubs should reject"), to missing the point on why City wrote the recent letter in the second paragraph, to not understanding in paragraph three that City's strategy is wholly consistent with their view that the current rules are null and void, and will be, irrespective of Friday's vote, until the tribunal makes their decision, and so on.

It's a poor piece of journalism from a reporter who is obviously so far out of his comfort zone. The only question is whether he is stupid enough to proudly demonstrate his lack of expertise in this area, or unprofessional enough to write only what he is told to write. Tough one to answer that. Maybe the answer is both .....