City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[M18CTID]

The club made that argument at CAS (we didn't give over the documents because UEFA had leaks) and got very short shrift on it.

I could be well wide of the mark on this but I don't think CAS are there to necessarily question how UEFA went about things and offer up criticism of UEFA where it might be warranted. Their job was to simply decide whether City were guilty of what UEFA accused us of. CAS effectively laughed UEFA's evidence right out of court - about a dozen references to "no evidence" in the CAS report - but their language in the report about that was diplomatic rather than inflammatory. I've not read the whole of the IC report into Everton's most recent case but the snippets I've seen regarding the accusations of non-cooperation from the PL show the IC being far more scathing of the PL than CAS were of UEFA when throwing out the main charges against us.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I actually think the media coverage of our case against the PL has been even worse than the coverage of the PL's case against us. It's been nothing short of a fucking disgrace and they're all going to look like right cunts if City win and it turns out that the PL's APT rules are unlawful.

It is as bad as the coverage of the Super League proposal which prompted street violence from some fans. This is as toxic as it gets.

 

[Keeper!]

Would a 70,000 stadium fit in at Edgeley?

No one has the right to stop them trying.

 

[marco]

Going on holiday next week, already decided I'm telling people I'm not into football if coversation turns to who do you support. Even told the Mrs and two grown up kids not butt in if they hear me say it and blab who I support. Really cant arsed with the vitriol, bantz, snide digs, bingo card shite that will likely follow.

no wrong move,take your shirt and rub there fucking noses in it if they start

 

[Norman kneejerk]

The reporting keeps pushing the line that City and Newcastle would be able to get sponsorships for huge money but to ne the crux of City's argument is that the new rules give a built in advantage to the usual suspects because what is deemed a fair amount of sponsorship to them would be much higher than other clubs so its just protectionism
This aspect has been ignored in the reporting however, surprise, surprise.

 

[Looby_Blue]

no wrong move,take your shirt and rub there fucking noses in it if they start

I know me, I know my temper and I know whats capable of coming out of my gob. Nah, I'm keeping schtum.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Levelling the playing field: new Premier League financial control measures

New financial control measures agreed by Premier League clubs in England aim to bring greater transparency to their financial arrangements – but further guidance is needed on their implementation.

www.pinsentmasons.com

That's a really interesting article, thanks. Perhaps this part explains why City are now claiming compensation:

"Concerns were also raised about the retrospective nature of the rules, given deals entered into within the preceding three years are caught. Objectors referenced the potentially unfair impact on clubs which have ongoing relationships in place with parties that now fall under the ambit of ‘associated party’. These clubs could face not only commercial but also potential legal issues, depending on the nature of these commitments."

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

The media of this country is a disgusting profession. Said it before, been shot down by media people before but its a disgusting profession that filters all the twats into its fold.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I actually think the media coverage of our case against the PL has been even worse than the coverage of the PL's case against us. It's been nothing short of a fucking disgrace and they're all going to look like right cunts if City win and it turns out that the PL's APT rules are unlawful.

No question that this has been the worst coverage we’ve ever had. It’s like the world as we know it is going to end - all City’s fault.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

That's a really interesting article, thanks. Perhaps this part explains why City are now claiming compensation:

"Concerns were also raised about the retrospective nature of the rules, given deals entered into within the preceding three years are caught. Objectors referenced the potentially unfair impact on clubs which have ongoing relationships in place with parties that now fall under the ambit of ‘associated party’. These clubs could face not only commercial but also potential legal issues, depending on the nature of these commitments."

Well that's them making it a legal requirement... based on a legal framework?

So are they really trying to make clubs ditch deals that they now find offensive?