City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)

[supercity88]

@supercity88 , what he says around the 11 a d 15 minute segments, lines up with how I understood the timeframe and what is being challenged here. Re our discussion earlier this today. He seems to have read it in a similar way.

Thanks mate, that helps. I wrongly tried to chew through things myself and ended up down a tangent and confused.

It's bizarre that Murphy actually seems to get it and rightly comes to the conclusion that this is a mountain out of the molehill. Anything anti-City sells, so it's no surprise we've seen selective quoting from our submission that adds to the drama. Ultimately if the rules are unlawful then quite correctly they'll have to go back to the drawing board. But what will happen is a new rule will be introduced that is lawful. That law will be quite similar, but the club will be aiming for a lawful version to have to remove the elements they're not content with.

The wider parts on the 14 club majority - well we'll have to see how much weight we've put on those. I'd imagine we've just thrown everything we can into the mix. The arbitrators will provide their position so what it does do is flush out any future legal case we may or may not pursue. If the arbitrators dismiss some of our claims outright we know it's not worth exploring further in the future.

Why so many journalists are suggesting this blows up the PL as we know it is a joke. It's one rule from what we know, and it just gets passed under different wording at a time in the future realistically. It doesn't mean all rules are out of the window. There's as much logic to that allegation as there would be in saying win this and we will field a team of 115 players and they can use their hands. That's a club statement I'd like to see.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Remember to spare a little thought today for the 'PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules' thread, as it isn't used to being so far down the thread listings. You lot in here have been stealing all it's posters!

 

[Academica]

@projectriver another balanced informative piece.

Have to agree with you on City challenging the 14/20 PL rule, which seems reasonable to me.

Refreshing to have Murphy and Matterface listening and asking questions rather than trying to talk over you or childishly trying score points like White and Jordan.

Is the 14/20 reasonable when you are voting on matters that affect a direct rival. As I stated earlier the Premier League are already making waves about the Club World Cup. This competition is worth between $50 and $100 million to City. Would it be reasonable for 14 clubs to vote and stop Premier League clubs from entering the competition next year. I am sure their are a number of clubs who would be happy to stop our participation. Would it be reasonable for rival supermarkets to hold a vote to stop Aldi opening any more stores. I'm sure Tesco, Morrisons and Lidl would like that power.

 

[mancboy]

He really has a bee in his bonet about our owners.

Tbh i think its jealousy, i think he sees himself as above talksport but knows he is just a wideboy made good and will never mix in the circles our owners do

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I have just listened to Stefan on Talk**** this morning and was interested in his comments on the club's attitude to the PL voting system on new rules. Could someone provide me with the voting figures for the adoption of the ATP rule, please. I believe it was 12 in favour, 6 against and two abstentions. This is important because only 60% of the clubs voted in favour if I'm right (only 60% of the PL membership). Only if the two abstentions are counted as voting in favour (which they clearly didn't!) can those in favour be said to have reached the 70% required. Stefan never mentioned this and yet it could explain what is seen as our club's attack on a democratic process - that is that the club have no problem with the process which is sound (unless it votes to introduce something which is unlawful!) but that, in this case the process was not followed and the ATP rule was not introduced at all because those in favour did not reach the required threshold. It's introduction, therefore, reflected "the tyranny of the majority" and not a properly enacted rule. Am I right or are my figures not correct?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

The only thing I’m somewhat confused about is that I understand that we abstained on the original vote. Had we voted against, it wouldn’t have gone through so, why didn’t we?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Excellent performance from Stefan and also very impressed with Danny Murphy's fair and balanced approach.

Fuck me. That was quite an intelligent discussion. @projectriver should have those two on his show more often.

 

[kaz7]

I have sussed it is not as big a deal as i was reading on page one but i still love it that we are trying to give the prem a bloody nose , they and the reds deserve it

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Is the 14/20 reasonable when you are voting on matters that affect a direct rival. As I stated earlier the Premier League are already making waves about the Club World Cup. This competition is worth between $50 and $100 million to City. Would it be reasonable for 14 clubs to vote and stop Premier League clubs from entering the competition next year. I am sure their are a number of clubs who would be happy to stop our participation. Would it be reasonable for rival supermarkets to hold a vote to stop Aldi opening any more stores. I'm sure Tesco, Morrisons and Lidl would like that power.

Fair point. Are the Premier League thinking of voting on that do we know?

 

[Ric]

The only thing I’m somewhat confused about is that I understand that we abstained on the original vote. Had we voted against, it wouldn’t have gone through so, why didn’t we?

City abstained in 2021, when the original rules went through 18-1 (with only Newcastle voting against). In the more recent vote in Feb 24 we were one of the six clubs who voted against it.