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

[halfcenturyup]

Looks like the club are happy with whatever parts of APT they got threw out.

All sounds like nonsense to me. How to say nothing in 800 words.

 

[eyalluvitt]

PJ Swales was at the forefront of that shafting

I did once see his Jag parked outside a public toilets in Knutsford

 

[eyalluvitt]

Anyone would think the Chelsea, Everton, Notts Forest and Leicester legal counsel were doing it pro bono…

With or without you-nitid?

 

[eyalluvitt]

Yes agreed. Rival fans will still believe what they want but not much anyone can do about that.

Good to hear that with legal cases affecting 25% of the clubs already and the legal bill at 50 million and rising the clubs are starting to question what the point of it all is.

American owners are ruining our National sport. They look to dominate not with investment of their own but eliminating investment from other rival clubs. It’s a race to the bottom.

City propose new player walkout song at the Etihad stadium

 

[Grassland Blue]

Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....

Aren’t the legal costs shared amongst the PL’s member clubs?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't think there's much point comparing the two. Clearly our owners have the clout of a nation state, not just access to the occasional friendly deal.

There are plenty of arguments to make against the shit that people throw at City, but I think it's self evident that our owner and chair have more direct influence, over more companies, and more wealth, than the owners of any PL club apart from Newcastle.

Fair points, and it was the only issue anybody has ever brought up about City's ownership that I ever felt even a tinge of "guilt" about. But then I looked, on the one hand, at the history of why United and Liverpool enjoyed their periods of success, the advantages they had that no-one did anything about and, on the other hand, the steps taken to stop City, including a changed FFP at the outset, the constant innuendo openly and indirectly through the press and, yes, most lately the new APT rules, and I said fuck them.

No City fan should give them an inch of moral high ground. No other club is concerned by the future sustainability of the football pyramid. They are only concerned about how much money they can make or how little they need to invest in order to compete. Fuck the lot of them.

One last point. Super-rich owners are just the latest fad in football club ownership as a direct result of the greed of the PL and other clubs. Gone are the days of local businessmen owning successful clubs. Gone are the days of those owners being replaced by national businessmen. Gone are the days of those owners floating their clubs on the stock exchange. Gone are the days of those owners selling out to US hedge funds and being successful. If you want to be more successful than City today, you need better and better connected owners than City have. Good luck with that. But don't cry about it, you brought it on yourselves with your greed and short-sightedness.

 

[Keeper!]

I still get the fucking blame for everything even decades after my death

Rightly so you scruffy runt.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The issue to me is the Newcastle deal should
never have been allowed, there was always going to have to be some form of APT rules as soon as it was.

Some could argue that applies to us too and the other court case ongoing might show that, but the key differentiator being we’re privately owned, albeit from a member of the ruling family of a state rather than the state itself.

Tbf, as soon as Khaldoon and Pearce became involved, the private ownership argument, while it may be true, flew out of the window where income is concerned. That doesn't mean we can't use it as an argument against the idea that the club is state-owned, state-funded, state-sponsored or whatever the latest watered down version is, it clearly isn't, but we can't pretend the club isn't in a much stronger position with a lot more large company contacts than any other club is, with the exception of Newcastle, and we aren't far below them.

See my previous post for why, and why I don't care.

 

[hammocity]

Here is an interesting thought.
I read that the PL expenses have risen by £50m largely due to legal costs incurred in trying to win their case vs City.
Their legal costs will continue to rise due to the ongoing ffp/psr challenge against our club.
From what I understand, the PL is running out of funds to continue their action.
Could the PL itself therefore, become a victim of its' own ffp/psr rules? Can you imagine that?
A delicious irony indeed!
Upon losing the case, (if that happens) how much will the PL have to pay, not just in legal costs, but compensation to CITY?
Interesting times.....

Now that would be delicious.