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

[Coatigan]

I've never questioned Stefan's legal ability or professionalism, just his curious approach to City. Put it like this, I'd be shit scared if he was my brief & my fortune or liberty depended on "dry considered" demeanour.

I can only look at this situation as to how I'd handle it, & tbh it'd totally different to what I've seen so far from Stefan.

A. Regarding the evidence, none of us have seen it, so why's a supposed City fans swimming against the tide of opinion proferred by our elite legal team?

Can you at least explain that to me, as I'm struggling to get it.

B. Also, why's he never gotten to the heart of our alleged criminality & asked Sly Sports & Talkshite why they've never asked HMRC, SFO, Companies House or the police to comment on our allegations & if they're investigating/have ever investigated City?

Don't you think this would kill all notions of our alleged criminality stone dead?

Can you shed light on these specific points.

That is the killer point for me. How can Stefan both admit he's not in receipt of the full facts surrounding the allegations or evidence offered, but then call into question the official club statement from our crack legal team who are? It makes zero sense & should come as no surprise that people are questioning his motives.

Essentially he's enabling those who still believe we're cheats & as guilty as sin regardless of the IC's findings. They believe we've not won on the evidence presented, but by loopholes in the process (time bars etc) & all this serves to do is prolong the bullshit we're all having to endure.

A reminder... Unlawful, Unfair, Unreasonable & now officially null & void. That seems pretty clear cut to me & most others, but Stefan disagrees with our legal team & the IC whilst admitting he's not in receipt of the full facts to even form a proper independent conclusion of his own.

I find this troubling & a bit weird, hence why I suspect his main concern is protecting his media profile rather than giving a full-blooded honest defence of City based on the conclusions reached by the IC & our preeminent legal team.

I would normally not even bother responding to this pish.

But, without being a condescending prick, mate, not only have you completely misunderstood what Stefan has claimed here, but you have concocted some warped reality bubble of it all. At the very least, you are on the wrong fucking thread!

If you can't follow very basic points made, I suggest you don't bother expanding the shit out of it as you have done, and then looking for odd motivation in it.

Look, not that I am or would need to 'defend' Stefan here, I myself have disagreed with his take and argued with him. Sometimes politely, sometimes tersely, sometimes sarcastically, depending on his tone, my mood, the general forum atmosphere at the time.

But I'm sorry, this level of layering that just doesn't exist there, based on things that have not actually been implied, never mind said, I feel needs called the nonsense it is.

Nonsense.

There.

 

[Coatigan]

All very good reasonable salient points. I don’t agree with the perceived pile on but I guess “all posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others”.

A win is clear in my mind. I can’t speak for others. It doesn’t really matter anyway. As long as the club deem this ruling as “seismic” then that is good enough for me.

Anything else is chronic doublespeak.

1st paragraph. Are they fuck! Nothing of any relevance in that shit show of a post.

2nd paragraph, totally agree.

 

[Coatigan]

What nonsensical attack? Explain...

Where have I said I don't believe him?

What's he said that I've said I don't believe?

If you don't know the answers to those, then best you leave it there and stop with these tedious lengthy murky-water potboilers.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Can I suggest that the posters who want to debate the merits of Stefan do so by PM please?

The rest of us don’t want to have to wade through it all but feel free to have your say by PM.

 

[Coatigan]

Can I suggest that the posters who want to debate the merits of Stefan do so by PM please?

The rest of us don’t want to have to wade through it all but feel free to have your say by PM.

What else is there to debate just now? You start. ;)

 

[SilverFox2]

No, but Avocado's are popular ;)

I live in Spain so avocado's are popular on toast and salads.
They actually are recommended by professional nutritionists because of their ability to target dangerous organ and belly fat when on a calorie controlled diet despite being high in calories themselves.

The famous Mediterranean diet would not be the same without them.

 

[Micky Blue]

So,City challenge the PL on their illegal rules and were the ones ruining football.

Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Coatigan]

I live in Spain so avocado's are popular on toast and salads.
They actually are recommended by professional nutritionists because of their ability to target dangerous organ and belly fat when on a calorie controlled diet despite being high in calories themselves.

The famous Mediterranean diet would not be the same without them.

Yes that famous mediterranean fruit/vegetable, the avocado!

Cannae beat butter mate.

 

[cheekybids]

So,City challenge the PL on their illegal rules and were the ones ruining football.

Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition

www.telegraph.co.uk

It’s only the law & knowing the telegraph they’ll have a story “come over here taking our jobs” & explain why paying Johnny Foreigner the same money isn’t right.

 

[SilverFox2]

Yes that famous mediterranean fruit/vegetable, the avocado!

Cannae beat butter mate.

Actually the Med diet contains small amounts of veg they are too busy exporting lettuce tomato peppers broccoli caulis and now potato's to the rest of Europe particularly UK.

 

[slbsn]

I would normally not even bother responding to this pish.

But, without being a condescending prick, mate, not only have you completely misunderstood what Stefan has claimed here, but you have concocted some warped reality bubble of it all. At the very least, you are on the wrong fucking thread!

If you can't follow very basic points made, I suggest you don't bother expanding the shit out of it as you have done, and then looking for odd motivation in it.

Look, not that I am or would need to 'defend' Stefan here, I myself have disagreed with his take and argued with him. Sometimes politely, sometimes tersely, sometimes sarcastically, depending on his tone, my mood, the general forum atmosphere at the time.

But I'm sorry, this level of layering that just doesn't exist there, based on things that have not actually been implied, never mind said, I feel needs called the nonsense it is.

Nonsense.

There.

Very hard to keep with so many "attacks" and the very many notifications I got this AM from Dribble (and others) who can continue to fuck off.

Let me summarise a small part of my (relevant) recent career experience to some of the points raised although I have not read them all.

I took over one of the most controversial public companies in the UK first as General Counsel then as CEO and in that time, amongst other matters, defended a very serious, high profile in its world, SFO investigation against former management for SEVEN years. I dealt with the SFO personally, face to face, in their office, in correspondence. And with very careful work, we succeeded in getting the investigation terminated without charge. Alongside that we defended multiple pieces of litigation including a class action led by City's own Philip Marshall KC. We published, perhaps, the most extensive restatement of an English company set of accounts in the last 20 years. There are many other aspects of my recent experience that is relevant to the City 115 case (not to APT which I explained many times is an esoteric Competition Law case) which I won't go into but you sending Googled articles are not that relevant to me.

I agree that anyone that wants debate me personally (ie my character, motivations, experience etc) here just either fucks off (I mean really who cares if you disagree with me - it is fine we do not need to agree) or DMs me and I will consider if I should reply.

Oh, and obviously, I am not making points in a vacuum. I speak to people and I triangulate conclusions before speaking. It doesn't mean it is always right obviously (I have lost lots of cases and regularly judge things wrongly because that is how life works) but I am confident I am rarely talking total complete nonsense.

 

[hallsteve62]

Maths, physics and bionics...

Cousin Kevin likes this post!

 

[Revolver]

So,City challenge the PL on their illegal rules and were the ones ruining football.

Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition

www.telegraph.co.uk

Football for these red lackeys is so much better if fair competition means their beloved clubs can hoover up Champs League money.

Whilst other clubs just know their place

 

[RiversideBlue]

Cousin Kevin likes this post!

Thats the bastard who cheated at Subbuteo against me!

 

[slbsn]

Welcome to the dark side.

Btw @slbsn I have sobered up now and remembered my question. There was a discussion about retrospectively applying interest to shareholder loans.

My point was that retrospective interest is now moot, presumably as:
- the judgment only relates to APT, and
- voiding the rules means there are no APT assessments to which interest should be applied, anyway.

So there are only two questions left in respect of interest , I think:

i) are the November transitional provisions lawful (in the case the amendments as a whole are deemed lawful, which isn't a given), ie can you transition from unlawful to lawful over a period?

ii) do these judgments mean that the treatment of interest in the FFP/PSR assessments is also unlawful, in which case do the old assessments have to be restated (probably needs a different arbitration?)?

Having read it again, I'm not sure this is any clearer. But it's my last attempt everyone will be pleased to know.

i) I suspect there is a good chance that transitional provisions are not lawful - they fundamentally and deliberately treat shareholder loans differently. This appears to be the number 1 issue the PL has.
ii) I don't think so - that also seems pretty clear from the decisions

But I don't think there is certainty here which is why the PL need to negotiate with City and kill APT 2.

The end game either way is surely not adding £20-40m to Everton's PSR losses so they fail by a mile for this year and 25/26? Surely. Because that is the likely consequence of retroactive shareholder loan provisions without mitigation.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

So,City challenge the PL on their illegal rules and were the ones ruining football.

Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition

www.telegraph.co.uk

Ironic that the unlawful rules were crafted to end the PL as we know it, or rather as it’s been since Pep arrived.

 

[Coatigan]

Actually the Med diet contains small amounts of veg they are too busy exporting lettuce tomato peppers broccoli caulis and now potato's to the rest of Europe particularly UK.

No I know. It is just that Avocado is more associated with South America, and parts of asia, than the med, was my joke.

This is much better isn't it, @Stoned Rose?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I took over one of the most controversial public companies in the UK first as General Counsel then as CEO and in that time, amongst other matters, defended a very serious, high profile in its world, SFO investigation against former management for SEVEN years. I dealt with the SFO personally, face to face, in their office, in correspondence. And with very careful work, we succeeded in getting the investigation terminated without charge. Alongside that we defended multiple pieces of litigation including a class action led by City's own Philip Marshall KC. We published, perhaps, the most extensive restatement of an English company set of accounts in the last 20 years. There are many other aspects of my recent experience that is relevant to the City 115 case (not to APT which I explained many times is an esoteric Competition Law case) which I won't go into but you sending Googled articles are not that relevant to me.

Sorry to be the pedant, but seeing as it’s your resumé I expect he wasn’t Philip Marshall KC at the time…

 

[madloaf]

So,City challenge the PL on their illegal rules and were the ones ruining football.

Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition

www.telegraph.co.uk

"Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it​

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition"

Or to call it it's proper name: The Premier League from 1992 to 2009.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

"Man City in danger of destroying Premier League as we know it​

Club’s legal onslaught on financial rules could allow wealthiest clubs to spend without limits and kill off competition"

Or to call it it's proper name: The Premier League from 1992 to 2009.

City have already destroyed the Premier League as we knew it. That’s the point that the article will conspicuously miss.