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

GOSBTS said:
Out of interest, what makes you say that Tony Bloom is blindly supporting the premier league? The only time I am aware that he ever spoken about the APT case is in an interview with the Athletic where he said:

"Bloom: I don’t want to talk too much about [the APT case] because it has gone to arbitration and we are going to get a ruling on that soon. We (Brighton) are outsiders. Each club, legally, are able to do that. I don’t think it’s great for the reputation of the Premier League, but these things happen. We have to see how the legal process develops. I don’t think it will be helpful for the Premier League to lose the case, but we are going to find out the outcome soon."

The only part of that comment that can in any way be seen as supportive of the premier league in my mind is the final part about it not being helpful for them to lose. However, it's objectively true for us as a club that the premier league losing the case has been unhelpful - Man City winning has caused a huge amount of uncertainty over the rules, and now no one even knows what the rules are currently, let alone what they will be in a few months

For a club of our size, all we can do is ride the currents and try to plan for the future as best as possible to avoid everything going tits up when we inevitably have players/staff poached. We can't do that effectively when there is such a large amount of uncertainty over the parameters we need to operate within.

All that is to say that I find it difficult to read that comment as outright support for the premier league so much as wanting what is best for Brighton as a club, and currently that is just certainty and consistency in the rules. I think that's probably true for most other clubs in the division as well really - few clubs are necessarily for or against the league in this case from what I've seen, they seem to just want everything resolved as quickly as possible so that they can start planning for the future (which may also be why they'd be willing to push through these amendments to the rules that the premier league is telling them will fix everything)

If Bloom has made other statements about the case I'd be grateful if you could let me know so I can read them :).
Click to expand...
Bloom is almost certainly the owner who wrote to Masters asking for interest free shareholder loans to be excluded from APT.

And that's despite him and Masters KNOWING THAT WAS UNLAWFUL!!!

So you can fuck right off, you self-righteous twat.
 
GOSBTS said:
Out of interest, what makes you say that Tony Bloom is blindly supporting the premier league? The only time I am aware that he ever spoken about the APT case is in an interview with the Athletic where he said:

"Bloom: I don’t want to talk too much about [the APT case] because it has gone to arbitration and we are going to get a ruling on that soon. We (Brighton) are outsiders. Each club, legally, are able to do that. I don’t think it’s great for the reputation of the Premier League, but these things happen. We have to see how the legal process develops. I don’t think it will be helpful for the Premier League to lose the case, but we are going to find out the outcome soon."

The only part of that comment that can in any way be seen as supportive of the premier league in my mind is the final part about it not being helpful for them to lose. However, it's objectively true for us as a club that the premier league losing the case has been unhelpful - Man City winning has caused a huge amount of uncertainty over the rules, and now no one even knows what the rules are currently, let alone what they will be in a few months

For a club of our size, all we can do is ride the currents and try to plan for the future as best as possible to avoid everything going tits up when we inevitably have players/staff poached. We can't do that effectively when there is such a large amount of uncertainty over the parameters we need to operate within.

All that is to say that I find it difficult to read that comment as outright support for the premier league so much as wanting what is best for Brighton as a club, and currently that is just certainty and consistency in the rules. I think that's probably true for most other clubs in the division as well really - few clubs are necessarily for or against the league in this case from what I've seen, they seem to just want everything resolved as quickly as possible so that they can start planning for the future (which may also be why they'd be willing to push through these amendments to the rules that the premier league is telling them will fix everything)

If Bloom has made other statements about the case I'd be grateful if you could let me know so I can read them :).
Click to expand...

Bloom was happy to sit on the fence, be non committal, he didn't want to show his hand before the APT arbitration.

Then City threw a grenade into the proceedings and challenged the interest free owner loans, which were no different to the APT they'd thought would screw City over.

Now he's balls deep and upto his scrawny neck involved, he's now got a dog in the fight, he'll back the cartel coz that unlawful, unfair current situation suites his and his clubs best interests.

I don't know if he's made any further statements since the result of the independent arbitration panel, but I bet his arse is twitching.
 
@slbsn From the offset, your stance was that the APT case is completely unrelated to the fraud case. Minimal overlap I think were words used (sorry if that's a misquote?).

Just wondering, given recent developments, has your stance on that changed at all? IE, is there perhaps more to the APT case than first met the eye which could/would have a major impact on the other case? Or are you still of the opinion that it has very little if any affect on our charges hearing?
 
ayrshire_blue said:
@slbsn From the offset, your stance was that the APT case is completely unrelated to the fraud case. Minimal overlap I think were words used (sorry if that's a misquote?).

Just wondering, given recent developments, has your stance on that changed at all? IE, is there perhaps more to the APT case than first met the eye which could/would have a major impact on the other case? Or are you still of the opinion that it has very little if any affect on our charges hearing?
Click to expand...
It's not a 'fraud case' by the way.

I'll let Stefan speak for himself but having been in agreement with him over this initially, it's now clear to me that the two are very closely linked. The published partial final verdict of the APT tribunal revealed that 'certain clubs' felt that we had ignored IAS 24, requiring us to declare any related party transactions. Hence we got the wholly manufactured associated party rules.

The alleged PL rule breaches specifically mention sponsorships and related parties. It's therefore quite clear that the APT rules introduced in 2021, and amended earlier this year, were linked to the PL charges.
 
Last edited:
What I don't get is why haven't renewed our sponsorship with Etihad at the higher rate with the current rules illegal?
Or have we but haven't told anyone yet?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Bloom is almost certainly the owner who wrote to Masters asking for interest free shareholder loans to be excluded from APT.

And that's despite him and Masters KNOWING THAT WAS UNLAWFUL!!!

So you can fuck right off, you self-righteous twat.
Click to expand...
Bloom will always side the Red scouse, rags and the Spurs’.

I want us to smash away the charges and litigate against some of our hateful rivals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.