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

[Resurrection Joe...]

It wasn’t that. She just appears to like flappy clobber.

I used to like Flappy Clobber...third album was shite though...

 

[havefaith]

Thats a hell of tweet and sums up the whole shambles that is the premier league, sources at the Rags, ffs.

 

[brazilians hurt]

I`ve always maintained that I fully believe/d in Khaldoons message that "we have taken a hit but never again".
I trust him that much.

If I remember rightly he said “pinch” which is beautifully understated given he was referencing the £49m fine we paid UEFA in 2014 for breaching FFP rules.
They should have realised just by that one statement what they were taking on!

 

[Keeper!]

Thats a hell of tweet and sums up the whole shambles that is the premier league, sources at the Rags, ffs.

Omar will be the source.

But I am still very unsure we have got what we really wanted, the rules were not changed yesterday, so let's not get too carried away yet.

 

[Impeccable One]

Guessing United, Liverpool and Arsenal after a meal somewhere.

And the irony being they probably went to the local kebab house !

 

[bluenova]

I think you need to be carful that you don’t fall into the trap of our detractors.

We are not invested in by a state or or state company, or sovereign wealth fund.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Silverlake or Todd at Chelsea have more invested in / control / influence more companies than Sheik. Khaldoon as high up at Mabuala excuse the spelling. Would be another.

Our owner (and I know some will argue that Sheikh Mansour is not our owner), is in a totally different league to Todd Boehly, in terms of personal wealth, access to finance, and influence.

Khaldoon and Mansour are the CEO and chair of Mubadala, which on its own is three times the size of Silverlake. It's not realistic to suggest that they have no influence over other companies that are linked to the UAE state. It's not a trap, it's common sense, and our board wouldn't get very far if they tried to pretend the Sheikh is just some rich bloke, who may or may not know a few other rich blokes in the UAE.

 

[oakiecokie]

If I remember rightly he said “pinch” which is beautifully understated given he was referencing the £49m fine we paid UEFA in 2014 for breaching FFP rules.
They should have realised just by that one statement what they were taking on!

At near 74 years of age I think I`ve mellowed quite a lot but over these past couple of years or so I`ve gone from despair to "fuck `em all" and I feel so much better for it.
My local boozer of 52 years is a Scouse habitat and I cannot wait for the outcome of these 115 so called "charges" and both barrels will be given to all the twats (thats assuming we are "cleared".) ;)

 

[cheekybids]

Nobody has ever explained to me how Sheik Mansour hasn’t used his influence to stop Emirates sponsoring The Arsenal.

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

Omar will be the source.

But I am still very unsure we have got what we really wanted, the rules were not changed yesterday, so let's not get too carried away yet.

That’s going to take time though. They’ll need to assess the ruling and figure out what they can and can’t do before drafting new rules to be voted on. If the fabled ‘databank’ was going to continue to exist, then yesterday’s vote could still have gone ahead because, as I understand it, they were only voting on limiting club access to it so they couldn’t essentially spy on other club’s commercially sensitive deals?

I haven’t followed it closely enough to know if that’s all they were voting on, but that seemed to be what the limited reporting yesterday was saying? I’d say that means it’s nailed on that the ruling requires significant change on at least some part of the APT regulations.

 

[Keeper!]

That’s going to take time though. They’ll need to assess the ruling and figure out what they can and can’t do before drafting new rules to be voted on. If the fabled ‘databank’ was going to continue to exist, then yesterday’s vote could still have gone ahead because, as I understand it, they were only voting on limiting club access to it so they couldn’t essentially spy on other club’s commercially sensitive deals?

I haven’t followed it closely enough to know if that’s all they were voting on, but that seemed to be what the limited reporting yesterday was saying? I’d say that means it’s nailed on that the ruling requires significant change on at least some part of the APT regulations.

But the present rules would have to be removed immediately and it appears they have not as yet.