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

mancboy said:
lol not sure we can charge them but it would be an awful look in front of the panel
Click to expand...
We can always let the PL know we will accept them taking a pinch just this once to make this particular request go away..let's say, £40m?
With the proviso that we can call on this evidence to defend our position in future cases if required,
 
Coatigan said:
I think they are quite different things, and I don't think precedent really matters in either. It is one thing to claim damages for deals delayed due to introduction of rules that turn out to be illegal. It is another to look for damages of an investigation whether set rules were broken.

That's just speaking from a logical take, no legal claim there whatsoever.
Click to expand...

My take has changed in light of us also seeking damages for loss of commercial deals.

I didn't think City would seek damages for an acquittal over 115, but now I'm not so sure.

It's a win/win for City board?

We lose the argument next week, it will probably see us be even more minded to seek damages later this year?

Personally, I think this is an early shot across the Premier League's bow, in terms of threatening their own cash over reputational damage.

The two are aligned, rules that prevent certain sponsorships, and smears that damage other potential sponsors.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
My take has changed in light of us also seeking damages for loss of commercial deals.

I didn't think City would seek damages for an acquittal over 115, but now I'm not so sure.

It's a win/win for City board?

We lose the argument next week, it will probably see us be even more minded to seek damages later this year?

Personally, I think this is an early shot across the Premier League's bow, in terms of threatening their own cash over reputational damage.

The two are aligned, rules that prevent certain sponsorships, and smears that damage other potential sponsors.
Click to expand...
Never mind that, who are we signing?
 
Something that got me thinking the other day?

Khaldoon stated the Premier League is a small place and we do eventually get to hear everything?

Positions change, clubs who previously campaigned against City, suddenly get rich owners of their own, have bigger aspirations?

Email disclosure was always going to be a matter of course, but maybe WE KNOW some of the language which was only privy between the Premier League and its members?

I can think of a certain owner in the North East who was very active against City until they were taken over by some rather wealthy people?

Same goes for a certain club in the West Midlands?

If we know there are emails that exist and we have seen/have them, it really does leave the Premier League wondering if we have held a smoking gun all along!
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
My take has changed in light of us also seeking damages for loss of commercial deals.

I didn't think City would seek damages for an acquittal over 115, but now I'm not so sure.

It's a win/win for City board?

We lose the argument next week, it will probably see us be even more minded to seek damages later this year?

Personally, I think this is an early shot across the Premier League's bow, in terms of threatening their own cash over reputational damage.

The two are aligned, rules that prevent certain sponsorships, and smears that damage other potential sponsors.
Click to expand...

Sorry, don't see it.

The two are too different to link, they just don't compare for me.

But getting cleared first would be enough to be excited about on its own.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.