You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Daily mail post on a daily basis about what will happen if we’re found guilty of 115.According to the Daily Fail, City winning would open the door for PL games to be played in America.
More bullshit from the Rag infested football media to turn even more football fans against City.
View attachment 121369
View attachment 121370
I’ll hazard a guess that it’s run by rags and dippers.
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.
We think, because all of this stuff is just journalists guessing or being fed lines. Theres no transparency or official record available to the public.
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,992
What a total load of absolute shite.According to the Daily Fail, City winning would open the door for PL games to be played in America.
More bullshit from the Rag infested football media to turn even more football fans against City.
View attachment 121369
View attachment 121370
Lovebitesandeveryfing
Well-Known Member
It has no baring on the 115 in my opinion.
One is an alleged breach of a variety of financial rules.
The other is us arguing part of the regulations are anti-competitive.
They are, obviously, quite distinct as issues. And the ruling will be quite distinct. But it is interesting, nevertheless, that City has raised this now and has changed from a defensive stance to an offensive one. Knowing that some sort of ruling about the 115 is due for the autumn, by all accounts I've seen.
It looks to me like a message saying, “Know just who you're taking on.”
Keepingthefaithsince1976
Well-Known Member
About flipping time....up the blues, keep the faith.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It couldn't have been a way to circumvent FFP, as you say. As well as it preceding the introduction of FFP our losses were huge in those years, so it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference.Yes I know it was time barred. I was just meaning the additional/hidden payment cannot have been a way to circumnavigate FFP, if the payments started 1-2 years before FFP was implemented. I know it wasn’t adjudicated on at CAS, was just more of a general point wondering why we did if (if the allegations are true).
......it was Rebecca Vardy.Imagine if the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’ was only inserted into the copy given to one club as a trap to identify the leak.
(I’m not being serious before anyone replies)