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

Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
It obviously suits us to do so. Khaldoon is no idiot. His experience in these situations is vast compared to that of the PL
 
BobKowalski said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair and valid, but some distance between that and the claim that the statement is this clear sign of a big victory for us and a loss for the PL it is made out to be.
 
SilverFox2 said:
We ie City would like more clarity on United being waved through on a minor charge and massive amount for COVID.
Click to expand...

I found the bit below interesting. In essence, ‘yes we have reached a settlement with City and no, we cannot tell you the details of that settlement.’ That is going to set off alarm bells at some PL clubs

‘Since announcing the settlement, BBC Sport has been told that the league's chief executive Richard Masters and chair Alison Brittain have offered to speak to clubs if they have questions.

However, league officials insist the nature of the agreement means that much of the detail has to remain confidential.’ @ BBC
 
Chris in London said:
Seriously?

We told them the rules were unlawful. They said they weren't. The tribunal agreed with us.

They tried a quick fix. We said "that doesn't work, all of the rules are unlawful." They said they weren't. The tribunal agreed with us.

For both those cases, the League will be paying a big chunk of our costs as part of the settlement announced yesterday. That figure will be tens of millions.

They may also be paying compensation for unlawfully blocking our deals with First Abu Dhabi Bank and Etihad, and for delaying the assessment of those deals in any event.

The most recent claim was (amongst other things) that you can't breathe new life into void rules by a few amendments any more than you can breathe new life into a dead parrot. We will probably never know whether that argument would have succeeded, but it was a runner.

By settling the claim now, we are not just quitting while we are ahead, we are quitting while we are well ahead.

Call that a win for the PL if you want to. I'd hate to see how you would describe a loss.
Click to expand...
As Warren Boufer said when asked how he made such a lot on the stock exchange "I am always criticised for selling too soon".
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that you are equating two outcomes with equal weight because both are uncertain.I think there are enough signs to suggest that we know City almost certainly got something significant out of this.

In most circumstances if person A is taking person B to court but settles out of court then person A has gained something to drop the charges. Person A isn’t admitting they were wrong all along they are saying “I’ll stop pointing out that you are wrong if you give me something I really want”

Everyone knows what the statement says.
 
Coatigan said:
Fair and valid, but some distance between that and the claim that the statement is this clear sign of a big victory for us and a loss for the PL it is made out to be.
Click to expand...

I don’t see it as a big victory for any side. The PL got what they wanted and we got something in return. We don’t know what that ‘something’ is, but it clearly satisfied City, and if the club is happy with it then that’s fine with me.
 
Cobwebcat said:
I think that you are equating two outcomes with equal weight because both are uncertain.I think there are enough signs to suggest that we know City almost certainly got something significant out of this.

In most circumstances if person A is taking person B to court but settles out of court then person A has gained something to drop the charges. Person A isn’t admitting they were wrong all along they are saying “I’ll stop pointing out that you are wrong if you give me something I really want”

Everyone knows what the statement says.
Click to expand...

What might maybe be more telling is the aftermath, and the reports of clubs clambering to find out more detail of the settlement.

It does leave the club in a bit of a damned either way perception. Either they dropped the challenge because, as the statement says, they accept the rules are valid in which case the PL was right. Or we got something in return that gives us a commercial advantage, in which case we are back to being the dodgy bastards we are often readily portrayed as.

The cleaner thing (note I am not saying 'better') would surely have been to let the challenge play itself out through a ruling that both the PL and ourselves have to live with.
 
Coatigan said:
What might maybe be more telling is the aftermath, and the reports of clubs clambering to find out more detail of the settlement.

It does leave the club in a bit of a damned either way perception. Either they dropped the challenge because, as the statement says, they accept the rules are valid in which case the PL was right. Or we got something in return that gives us a commercial advantage, in which case we are back to being the dodgy bastards we are often readily portrayed as.

The cleaner thing (note I am not saying 'better') would surely have been to let the challenge play itself out through a ruling that both the PL and ourselves have to live with.
Click to expand...
Well in those terms you may have to accept we are dodgy bastards and are playing the game better than the other dodgy bastards who started all this. City will do what is best for City whatever the public perception because we have been pushed to.
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
No, I’m stating most fan bases believe refs are against them. Do they not?

Haha ok so you’re a conspiracy loon who thinks every ref is out to get city and stop our success. If thats the case they’ve failed miserably haven’t they. I walk away and think the ref has been shit. Usually because they are, you then walk by the opposition fans who tend to say the same. I think we get some for us and some against us. Nowhere near as bad as it was when pep first arrived.
Click to expand...
In recent posts you have been favourable to Liverpool and Spurs and you don't think City have had the rough end of the stick from referees, but you don't consider ant referees' decisions to be relevant and rather than consider any real decisions you simply assert that every supporter considers their club to be such a victim. I think you'd find RAWK or Redcafe a more natural home - they don't think very much on there.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yea poor choice of words from me, I was meaning more the volume of simultaneous responses, rather than the tone. In fairness, people have been on the whole polite and genuine. As have I too. No issue there, other than struggling to keep up with the worms out of the can I seem to have opened.
 
BobKowalski said:
I don’t see it as a big victory for any side. The PL got what they wanted and we got something in return. We don’t know what that ‘something’ is, but it clearly satisfied City, and if the club is happy with it then that’s fine with me.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I keep saying this, but I think it gets lost in my take on the statement itself.
 
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