City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Dribble said:
The Post Office has the same right to initiate prosecutions as you & I do. They don't have the powers of arrest, prosecution or incarceration, but that's not my point.

We KNOW they're being investigated ahead of the public enquiry findings. Again, are City being investigated by the authorities yes or no, & if no why not seeing as what we're being accused of amounts to serious fraud, money laundering & tax evasion.
Click to expand...
Yes they do
 
slbsn said:
Listen mate. Don’t speak to me in your bullshit tone - you’ve been rude a million times to me. If you have a question about a point you made and a point I made in response find it (not interested in your usual misquoting) and I’ll try and explain. And if my view has changed I’ll say so. Changing a view based on facts changing is perfectly normal behaviour in the outside world.

Whatever you are referring to was presumably pre Nov 2024. And this explainer is talking about risk - risk the PL can’t afford regardless of the real world impact which I maintain will be nil due to mitigation (ie no club will be punished for doing something that wasn’t against the rules at the time through no fault of their own).
Click to expand...

Sorry, It was literally just a question. You're the one firing insults to me for some reason (including a below belt attempt on where I live) This was pre Nov 24 when I was saying the PL had to apply the tweaked rules retrospectively otherwise they'll face another challenge.
 
wolviedinho said:
Reading through this stuff is great. The varied opinions make it all worth while.

The pile on again today against another poster is where it lets itself down unfortunately.

Dribble or Slbsn shouldn’t have to constantly defend their position. Far too many posters policing the thread and far too many easily offended if a point is challenged by supposedly inferior minds.

We all know despite the constant back and forth legal fighting that city will be cleared of any wrongdoing and that is all that matters. The legal/financial aspects in both cases is the only reason this shit show has been going on for so long.
Click to expand...
Well in Wolvie. Exactly why I suggested those who wanted to debate the merits of Stefan do so by PM.
 
danielwood5 said:
They're being spoken about in this way as this drives clicks, comments and newspaper purchases, in the same way that headlines of "Arctic Blasts to Batter Britian" usually means it'll be a bit parky in London.
The judgment could be either eveything City wants it to be with Masters, FSG and Levy led away in chains or the complete destruction of the club with previous trophies handed out to other clubs. In reality it won't be either of those things and will fall somewhere on the spectrum between those two outcomes, judging off past information and the information from knowledgable people it will more than likely be in City's favour with possibly some points of blame laying at City's door. In that eventuality the papers will cry "cheats!", we'll say we're exonerated and hopefully the whole story saga will be finally over aside from snide whisperings from the cartel and their client media.
There's really no point getting worked up about it or speculating why X,Y or Z has or hasn't happened as there's genuinely no way of anyone outside the involved parties knowing what's really going on with it all, we'll find out soon enough and take it from there. It certainly won't be the doom and gloom scenario that people outside the club are hoping for.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%.

Hence why I have an issue with those amongst us who're inadvertently perpetuating the media narrative against City which is driving some of our fans to despair & inflaming others to attack us as cheats who need closing down & jailing.

We need to be rational & to keep putting these points to the media so that casual onlookers start asking them some searching questions regarding the role they've played in this ridiculous fiasco.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
Sorry, It was literally just a question. You're the one firing insults to me for some reason (including a below belt attempt on where I live) This was pre Nov 24 when I was saying the PL had to apply the tweaked rules retrospectively otherwise they'll face another challenge.
Click to expand...
Well perhaps it’s your natural tone. But I’ve found it rude a few times and I can’t be arsed with it any more. Nobody wants to hear more of this stuff though. As I said, if you find what you said and what I replied, I’ll see if my view has changed, developed, evolved, “flip flopped”, improved or whatever - I’m not doing based on your recollection.
 
slbsn said:
Listen mate. Don’t speak to me in your bullshit tone - you’ve been rude a million times to me. If you have a question about a point you made and a point I made in response find it (not interested in your usual misquoting) and I’ll try and explain. And if my view has changed I’ll say so. Changing a view based on facts changing is perfectly normal behaviour in the outside world.

Whatever you are referring to was presumably pre Nov 2024. And this explainer is talking about risk - risk the PL can’t afford regardless of the real world impact which I maintain will be nil due to mitigation (ie no club will be punished for doing something that wasn’t against the rules at the time through no fault of their own).
Click to expand...
Not much bullshit tone that I can discern in what he said and how he said (wrote) it
 
Was Slbsn on Talkshite or whichever media company it was this morning?

If so, has anyone got a link?

Can you post it please

PS. Keep up the good work Stefan.
 
slbsn said:
There is no way they will apply market levels of interest for historic periods where they cause clubs to breach. That would be obviously unfair and, no doubt, full mitigation anyway
Click to expand...

here you go for reference.

my opinion is the PL are really going to struggle to get any rules that will work for the next 3 years. What they need to do is set the rules now for a year one monitoring period then in 3 years start the evaluating rolling period. It's the only way it's fair and legal across all clubs
 
Dribble said:
Commonsense is all you need.
Click to expand...
Let it go, mate.
Pretty much invariably, the plea of "it's common sense" is one based upon the premise that one person's hunch, whim or instinct somehow trumps the education, qualifications and/ or lived experience of the person or people proposing the opposing view.
Your implementation of it is not an exception to that rule.
In other words, you're clutching at straws.
FWIW, I have read your earlier arguments and - despite wanting you to be right - I remain wholly unconvinced. This latest proclamation about common sense being their foundation has only served to confirm to me that I was right to dismiss them.
It's over. You're entitled to your opinion but you have lost the argument.
It happens to the best of us.
(Not saying you are but) don't wind yourself up. Let it go and move on. Please.
I suspect you'll be happier for doing so.
 
It's Sunday so no work.
It's too cold to do the garden.
Too early for the pub, just what can I do ?

I know, I'll come on here and argue the toss for 3 hours with someone I've never met about one of City's best ever off the field victorys*

*If it's spelt wrong please change to wins.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
here you go for reference.

my opinion is the PL are really going to struggle to get any rules that will work for the next 3 years. What they need to do is set the rules now for a year one monitoring period then in 3 years start the evaluating rolling period. It's the only way it's fair and legal across all clubs
Click to expand...

In that example what about fairness for clubs that have made significant profits on sales of players in the written off monitoring years?
 
slbsn said:
Not sure I see it that way. They want a workable set of APT rules for ongoing assessments of PSR and City appear to want those rules to incorporate adjustments for FMV for all historic periods and may even be asking the PL to rerun 22/23 and 23/24 tests on such a basis. We simply don’t know.

But if it was just 24/25 and on with 22/23 and 23/24 interest FMVed that seems reasonable presuming fair mitigation is granted to Everton and other clubs with big interest FMV adjustments for 22/23 and 23/24 in such a scenario.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling with all this, as you can probably tell.

I can't see any business reason why City would want to force the PL to apply the new rules retrospectively, but I can think of many reasons why the PL would want to do that themselves, and why City would want to stop them.

Anyway, I have taken up enough of your time. If you had to explain everything to me about this whole sorry mess that I struggle with, we will both be here until doomsday. We will see soon enough, I suppose.
 
Maybe I’m missing something
But isn’t there a Bosman situation here?
PL rules to restrict spending. UEFA have their rules. MLS etc. Saudi no rules.
If these rules are not anti competitive then I don’t know what is.
PL is killing itself for the sake of 4 or 5 clubs who want an excuse for running their clubs badly.
 
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