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

Vic said:
Surely the original tribunal in its "partial final award" has reserved to itself the possibility of granting remedy to City (and costs).

#604: Injunctive relief and damages are also sought. We reserve our jurisdiction to grant such relief. We do not [do] so in this Award because we heard no submissions as to such relief and in any event we consider that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in the light of our conclusions.

#605. We also reserve all questions of costs.

If I read that right, they expected City and the PL to be discussing how to compensate City for restricting our sponsorship. Instead, rather than negotiate with City, the PL have ignored City's representations that the "amended" rules were still unlawful, and forced them through.

It's now open to City to ask the original tribunal for damages and injunctive relief. I think City could have sought an injunction to stop the new rules (if they were still unlawful) but maybe preferred to let things play out, knowing the final final award of the tribunal is on the way.

If I am right, and the PL has just voted in new unlawful rules, the PL has just added contumacy to its sins.
Click to expand...
Yes I think City may still get damages but I assume they haven’t sought an injunction or we’d know about it
 
Chris-NCL said:
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned on here already or not, but here it goes.

Liverpool fan, Lord Bassam of Brighton has proposed an amendment in the football governance bill that would prohibit owners who are heads of states, or members of an government (world wide), immediate family members of any of those, and any sovereign wealth fund.

Liverpool and their chums are not satisfied with doing the work via the Premier League, but are trying to enact actual laws of the land to prevent any competition.

Funnily enough, he hasn’t proposed any laws to force the removal of any clubs owners who have tried to form any breakaway leagues (ESL), or steal control of football in England (project big picture).
Click to expand...
Silly old ****
 
Bluewonder said:
I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that if you're targeting ownership then Mansour is our controlling shareholder.
Click to expand...
Legal Ownership is not the same as having a majority shareholding in a company further up the chart or even owning the ultimate parent.
Mansour appears in City’s accounts very specifically as NOT the owner but as a person of influence. So you could regulate him out but not by pretending he is the legal owner.
 
KS55 said:
Legal Ownership is not the same as having a majority shareholding in a company further up the chart or even owning the ultimate parent.
Mansour appears in City’s accounts very specifically as NOT the owner but as a person of influence. So you could regulate him out but not by pretending he is the legal owner.
Click to expand...
He is the legal owner.
 
I don’t post very often and I am far too long in the tooth to throw a hissy fit about being 2nd in the league and well placed in the champions league.

But my thoughts.
Complacency must set in when you have won the lot.
Has the club took their eye off the ball with all the legal shite.
The midfield for me is the problem, Gundo off the pace, Bernie i love but where the fuck is he meant to be playing, Phil on the top of his game is great going forward but lets be honest he couldn't tackle a big dinner as they say in my part of the world.

We made ridiculous decisions in the summer no Rodri back up or no Haaland back up.

Yesterday why did we not change anything till 75 mins, 3 nil down with at least Savio, Phil, Rico all needing to be changed with Kevin , Jack and Nunes all watching on.

I’ve no answers but we have the team the manager we just need to keep the faith as class is permanent form is temporary.

Win at Anfield and we have the team to do that and the world looks different.

Agh wrong thread, thats why i dont post
 
Bluewonder said:
He is the legal owner.
Click to expand...
He is not City’s Legal owner. That is our single shareholder CFG. It’s a very simple legal point. Why do you think Mansour is designated in the accounts as a person of influence?
Any Act must be specific as to whom it it is regulating.
Anyhow, this amendment will fail at the first hurdle, so it’s moot.
 
KS55 said:
He is not City’s Legal owner. That is our single shareholder CFG. It’s a very simple legal point. Why do you think Mansour is designated in the accounts as a person of influence?
Any Act must be specific as to whom it it is regulating.
Anyhow, this amendment will fail at the first hurdle, so it’s moot.
Click to expand...
But if he owns most of CFG then surely that makes him majority legal owner
 
KS55 said:
Do you know what a legal owner is? I think not.
Click to expand...
The amendment is not limited to owners though, but also directors. Unlike Premier League rules, it is not limited to who is classed as an owner or director of the club, but the holding companies themselves.

For what it is worth, I have emailed a couple of local members of the House of Lords expressing my concern, and asking them to vote the amendment down. I believe it only takes 1 member of the House of Lords voting against an amendment for it to be throw out.
I of the members I contacted is a Newcastle United fan.
 
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.