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

[johnny crossan]

City's media market/focus isnt on a small island in the Irish/North Sea, infested with a biased,racist, dying species.....To a considerable extent they are irrelevant, barely tolerated, and mainly beyond cultivation....

Steady on old chap, without us you wouldn't have this inter thingy to be rude on. Mind your manners please.

 

[slbsn]

That's weird. So the club was bluffing with their letters to the PL and the clubs? I may be wrong, but I am not so sure Mansour and Khaldoon try to bluff their way out of situations ...

City will wait for the Tribunal determination and see if it makes the new rules problematic. Only if the PL clubs then refuse to align with the Tribunal judgment would a further legal challenge be required. I don’t believe it will get to that point. But perhaps I am naive

 

[halfcenturyup]

City will wait for the Tribunal determination and see if it makes the new rules problematic. Only if the PL clubs then refuse to align with the Tribunal judgment would a further legal challenge be required. I don’t believe it will get to that point. But perhaps I am naive

:) Fair enough. I eventually got that that was your point with the help of several others.

The new rules are being implemented November 22 aren't they? You don't think the club will get them to delay that until the tribunal judgment? Or you just think there is no point?

 

[55yr old teenager]

Absolutely not. That would be completely against ethics. The IC cannot tell a party something without telling the other parties. Collusion.

You maybe right, but would it not be nieve of us not to think stuff happens like this. Just look at all the corruption that goes on in the government and big business. Call me a cynic and maybe delusional but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

 

[Vic]

The law & common sense & fairness don’t always correspond. However we know the panel gave the benefit of the doubt for the premier league motives but still ruled they were unfair. It seems likely in my uneducated opinion that they’ll allow the changes as it appears fair to those clubs & allow City’s sponsorship.

I'm not sure the Tribunal was that ambivalent about PL motives if the rules were "by object" unfair (intended to be anti-competitive).

 

[give it to gordon]

As I see it
The pl have changed the rules back to thee previous rules by a vote.
What I don't understand is going by the press/media City lost the IC hearing. So why change the rules if the pl won the IC hearing ?
Why did the pl change the rules they believe to be lawful before the IC release it's recommendations ?
For the pl and the press/ media to say the pl won the hearing yet its scrambling around quickly to change legal ( in their view ) back to the old rules.
To partly change the rules means City won the IC hearing !.
How the press/media are spinning this as a win for the pl when they have been forced to change the rules is baffling.

Slightly of topic but how have other clubs who have had points deducted not taking the pl to court. How can these clubs just except punishment when rags were allowed to go over the threshold by 75million and no points deducted ?

The pl is as bent as f***

 

[Vic]

I doubt they will accept compromises on matters of law and if they did, it would only be with the acceptance of both parties? I am not sure the club would accept that if they believe in their position (it could be they have a wider strategy than just Etihad). And even then, it would allow another party, say Villa, to challenge the lawfulness of the rules and the changes.

My uneducated opinion is that the tribunal has to make a judgment purely on the legal arguments put by the PL and the club. But I am happy to admit there is a very good chance I have no idea what I am talking about :)

It's City's case. We asked the tribunal to judge the rules unlawful. They did. It's usually open to judges to deal with "what if" questions but by and large they will rule only on what they're asked to do.

I think the tribunal left final judgment to see if the parties could agree on lawful rules. I won a small claims case, but I'd had some "betterment" and the judge then asked if I'd made an offer to settle before going into court and then asked the other party if that offer would be acceptable, their solicitor said yes and I just said "plus costs".

If one of the parties has compounded their defeat in court by forcing through new unlawful rules then costs and potential damages awarded to City will be higher than if mutual agreement had been reached.

 

[BlueRockape]

As I see it
The pl have changed the rules back to thee previous rules by a vote.
What I don't understand is going by the press/media City lost the IC hearing. So why change the rules if the pl won the IC hearing ?
Why did the pl change the rules they believe to be lawful before the IC release it's recommendations ?
For the pl and the press/ media to say the pl won the hearing yet its scrambling around quickly to change legal ( in their view ) back to the old rules.
To partly change the rules means City won the IC hearing !.
How the press/media are spinning this as a win for the pl when they have been forced to change the rules is baffling.

Slightly of topic but how have other clubs who have had points deducted not taking the pl to court. How can these clubs just except punishment when rags were allowed to go over the threshold by 75million and no points deducted ?

The pl is as bent as f***

Nice one

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What’s wrong with that?

I assumed my second sentence provided a clue…

 

[Vic]

Notice here again how they talk around things, again. And just explain the general process of voting.

Notice also here how the Premier League is presented in a positive light and Man City is presented as a some sort of a trouble maker who is in a minority compared to the rest of the league. All of that suits the Premier League's interests. This whole media report is structured as such.

Again, the central issue I am raising here is not about Man City versus the league or the league vs. Man City. The central issue I am raising here is about the substance of these news reports. What specific changes were made. It is only by seeing and understanding that substance that one can understand what Premier League is doing. But such things are kept in obscurity and that is very, very much so for a reason. Many of those Premier League clubs who voted are also kept in such obscurity which is how and why things are pursued.

That was a better "explainer" than e.g. Dan Roan on the BBC. To make it better, he could have added "but if City are right, the vote is irrelevant because winning a vote doesn't mean the rules are lawful".