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

[Coatigan]

It’s difficult to understand because it’s bullshit. The second decision confirmed the rules were unlawful from the outset. The question that is unanswered is whether the November 2024 fixes made the rules lawful from that point on. There is just no doubt at all the rules were unlawful before that.

Please read the February decision.

I am only talking about the PL stance with the new rules. And to an extent their earlier stance that the rules can be fixed with a tweak, which is what they did and we accepted.

 

[CC1]

The rules were never thrown out. They were tweaked. We clearly did think they affected us, hence we challenged them so confidently. For whatever reason, we have pulled out of that challenge. That reinforces the PL's position. It is that simple mate.

How big are your “tweaks”. :-)

Either way they were determined as being unlawful but as the agreement we now have with PL gives us what we want, we’re leaving it to those they now affect, to challenge them.

 

[Saddleworth2]

To be clear, at no point do I argue we have come out of this poorly. At no point.

My argument is, that based on that statement, nobody can possibly know.

It is framed in such a way, that validates the PL stance. And says literally no more than that. Who gained what, whether we folded or the PL sold their soul to us, that's all conjecture, but nothing at all to back that we have 'won'.

The statement is a public admission the PL were right, there is no ifs or buts about that however.

Its not mate. The rules have been changed because of our challenge. We have simply accepted the latest version. The statement is bland and simply states we accept the legality of the current changed rules which we do. Most thinking people will look beyond the bland statement and most concur that city 'won'. Some will know nothing of the case and take the statement at face value 'City agree some rules are valid'. But how does that validate the PL stance? What stance? That the latest version of the rules are now valid? Well they are only valid because City have settled!
I genuinely don't understand why you are making such a point on this.
There is more to unfold that will provide more context of the settlement. Particularly the Etihad renewal.

 

[Coatigan]

Of course, they are. Because we’ve dropped our challenge in exchange for what we wanted - as reported by Mike Keegan who has got absolutely everything right about this challenge so far.

Hopefully we either announce the expansion of the Etihad deal (and other sponsors) or we just wait to see an increase in our books.

Or maybe we dropped our challenge because it was futile and all we got out of it was the shred of dignity to release that statement without getting our arse publicly handed to us. Nobody can know.

For the record I don't for a second believe that, but no speculation is any less valid than any other, that's wharte we now are. Apart from the statement itself, which is clear.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Let's not get silly. The statement is simple. It doesn't say we accept the rules. It says we accept rhe rules arw valid and binding. Which is what the PL claimed. Our statement publicly endorses that their position was right.

What that may have cost the PL or what we gain from that, people can go as wild with as their imagination allows.

But the statement itself is beyond queation or debate, nobody can argue otherwise.

But thats how it works surely? It might even have been agreed with the PL on that statement. Thats part of negotiations, setting the narrative for public consumption.

 

[CC1]

Or maybe we dropped our challenge because it was futile and all we got out of it was the shred of dignity to release that statement without getting our arse publicly handed to us. Nobody can know.

For the record I don't for a second believe that, but no speculation is any less valid than any other, that's wharte we now are. Apart from the statement itself, which is clear.

I think you have to take into consideration our owners & their ability to deal with the situation in such a way that suits us.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Remember, we were going to go to war with the PL, bring in most expensive legal team to tie up the PL in knots for years. Money no issue, we can spend and burn it. As long as the PL suffer. That was our starti9ng point.

For us to reverse that means something has happened.

 

[kingn6]

a levy handshake is about as reliable as the roof at the swamp

What do you mean

Levy: Let us build a dynasty Ange


Levy: You will be allowed to move toa contender for the lesgue


Levy: i will get your brother out of this mess


Levy: i will take down City I promise

 

[Coatigan]

They can, and I just have.

You’re out of butter again aren’t you? I can tell.

They can't, and you haven't.

You have just said some stuff. But it is both wrong and irrelevant. That's not debating it.

Am I irrate, of course I am, simultaneously being ganged up on by multiple posters (who in fairness I do generally value and trust on here, hence I bother responding). All for not showing the same blind bravado over a statement of concession.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Well you and I at least make it a hat trick of being on the opposite sides of each of the 3 APT statements. And I say opposite sides, rather than disagreeing, because there is as you say nuance in all 3.

If you were to suddenly turn around and proclaim I was 100% right all along and you were wrong, people would be within their right to speculate whether you had a eureka moment or if I bribed you or sucked you off, but at the end of the day all it would leave is you having changed your stance for whatever reason.

I thought apt1 was a win, overall. I thought apt2 was as clear a win as it gets. This settlement though, is us publicly accepting the PL were right. What that gains for the club, that's finger in the air stuff.

For the record, I am not 'unhappy' with the outcome. But if the clubs were true to what they claimed in their challenge, then this is a clear departure from that.

You are clearly happy to die on your chosen hill as is your prerogative, and many others believe that City have achieved what they wanted from their challenge of the APT rules, and have no interest in pursuing the matter any further.

The wording used in the announcement of the settlement, is merely "window dressing" for the sake of expediency, and confusion designed to save face for the PL.

IMHO

 

[HelloCity]

Or maybe we dropped our challenge because it was futile and all we got out of it was the shred of dignity to release that statement without getting our arse publicly handed to us. Nobody can know.

For the record I don't for a second believe that, but no speculation is any less valid than any other, that's wharte we now are. Apart from the statement itself, which is clear.

The proof will ultimately be in the pudding - our accounts. Although an announcement would be nice.

I do wonder if our Puma deal of £100m a year also helped in the PL relenting on our Etihad deal (as is being reported).

 

[Coatigan]

So if villa and Newcastle challenge these rules like City did the pl are still in the same mess ?

In reality the pl need to change the rules to prevent possible other clubs going court against them ?

Depends on how good their lawyers are.

And if they see their hypothetical challenge through, or drop it.

 

[Coatigan]

How big are your “tweaks”. :-)

Either way they were determined as being unlawful but as the agreement we now have with PL gives us what we want, we’re leaving it to those they now affect, to challenge them.

They weren't though. The Previous rules were, the new rules were not determined unlawful, nor lawful. But we have accepted them as valid, by dropping our challenge and publicly declaring them as such.

 

[Saddleworth2]

They can't, and you haven't.

You have just said some stuff. But it is both wrong and irrelevant. That's not debating it.

Am I irrate, of course I am, simultaneously being ganged up on by multiple posters (who in fairness I do generally value and trust on here, hence I bother responding). All for not showing the same blind bravado over a statement of concession.

To be clear mate. I'm not ganging up on you - you are a bluemoon mate. Neither am I greeting the statement yesterday with blind bravado. It is what it is. Clearly on balance the club considered a settlement to be more advantageous to them than proceeding.
The statement yesterday is already todays chip paper. Its what happens next that is important.

 

[Sofiablu]

Lots of interesting views on this latest development. I’m just wondering if City have managed to get the PL to change their approach to the implementation and interpretation of these rules, without actually rewriting them?
As we know from the courts in the U.K. the way they go about interpretation of the law can have a huge impact on the outcome of a case.

 

[bluwes]

That really can't be claimed to any conclusive level whatsoever. Anyone's guess, but the statement is pretty clear though. The rules are valid and binding, as claimed by the PL.

Reading this thread and all your posts I have come to the conclusion that you are trolling, there cant be any other reason reading some of your responses

 

[BobKowalski]

They can't, and you haven't.

You have just said some stuff. But it is both wrong and irrelevant. That's not debating it.

Am I irrate, of course I am, simultaneously being ganged up on by multiple posters (who in fairness I do generally value and trust on here, hence I bother responding). All for not showing the same blind bravado over a statement of concession.

As we are not privy to the terms of the settlement I am not sure it is worth getting steamed over it. The PL needed their APT revised rules to remain on the books. City threatened that need and given the PL did not want to test the new rules at a tribunal and risk another finding against them, they clearly offered City some sweeteners to buy our public acceptance.

What the PL offered is confidential, and I suspect it is accurate the other PL clubs are none the wiser, given it would have been leaked by now if they were privy to that offer. Although, I am unsure if that stance can be maintained given the PL is owned by the clubs.

This isn’t about right or wrong. This is a commercial decision where everyone walks away with something and should be seen in that light.

 

[SilverFox2]

'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

We ie City would like more clarity on United being waved through on a minor charge and massive amount for COVID.

 

[Coatigan]

You are clearly happy to die on your chosen hill as is your prerogative, and many others believe that City have achieved what they wanted from their challenge of the APT rules, and have no interest in pursuing the matter any further.

The wording used in the announcement of the settlement, is merely "window dressing" for the sake of expediency, and confusion designed to save face for the PL.

IMHO

Again just to be clear, I am not arguing the club didn't get what they might have wanted out of it all. Nor event hat the statement is a genuine reflection of the club's stance.

But I also think people are too readily using it to celebrate some imagined behind the scenes victory, when the statement literally states the opposite with very little if any room whatsoever, for interpretation.

As I also point out, I am not unhappy with it either. These are serious professionals and I trust their judgement, even if that was to concede fully.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

They can't, and you haven't.

You have just said some stuff. But it is both wrong and irrelevant. That's not debating it.

Am I irrate, of course I am, simultaneously being ganged up on by multiple posters (who in fairness I do generally value and trust on here, hence I bother responding). All for not showing the same blind bravado over a statement of concession.

My take, this was never about the rules, it was about City getting a major sponsorship blocked. The legal challenge was a means to an ends. It looks like the PL have caved on the Etihad sponsorship which is all we were after. No point carrying on fighting if the fight has already been won.