City launch legal action against the Premier League

[halfcenturyup]

I am not trying to suggest anyone in particular is leaking I simply don’t know all I am trying to suggest is it’s best to keep an open mind.
Of course not all but I had dealings many years ago with a Barrister and he had the loosest tongue you could imagine he was playing Billy Big ones and
Bear in mind all the info in this matter has been shared with clubs

Well possibly. But, in my mind at least, if the PL has been given permission by the arbitrators to communicate about the case with the clubs, then it is their responsibility to make sure it stays confidential. I am pretty sure the arbitrators have been hugely embarrassed by the leak and will take the PL to task for it.

Of course. What goes on in my mind is a mystery even to me sometimes :)

 

[invisibleandalone]

I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely? (Pace Kieron Maguire)
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.
Despite the proceedings being confidential, I can see no reason why City should not state their case in public, at least in general terms.

And imagine the twist of the facts when the media manipulate every statement on a daily basis.

 

[cheekybids]

All good points, but the PL don't have to conclude the club is state-owned to apply the APT rules.

View attachment 122639
View attachment 122640

Let's not forget who Mansour's brother is.....

It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.

This is their definition of material influence, btw:

View attachment 122642

I’d imagine the US billionaires also materially influence their sponsors / partners with shareholdings.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

There is much comment on how the IC will treat the PL's lack of control of the leaked information and how they will treat the party to the arbitration because of it. It would seem they'll get a nasty finger wagged at them, if the similarly leaked information from UEFA in actual court proceedings, is anything to go by. In other words "Nothing".

There will be some vague promise of internal review or internal investigation and that will be it. Rank bad faith treated as normal in so far as CIty is concerned, again.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.

 

[Blueeye]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I’d imagine the US billionaires also materially influence their sponsors / partners with shareholdings.

A spot of jiggery-pokery with shares and share dealing!?!
Not round Tottenham way surely?

 

[KS55]

1. No
2. Maybe
3. What makes you think they haven't passed any of them?

Re 3 as I said, I am guessing since City have not given their side, but we do know something has been knocked back if we are claiming damages.

 

[Phil1]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

All of those things have been achieved in spite of the Premier league opposition clubs attempting to destabilise the club in cahoots with those who run the game.
Also, this notion we can buy who we want when we want has been disproven pretty much every single transfer window over the last 5 years or so.
We aren’t going to war, those are the words used by simpletons. We feel we are being unfairly targeted and have every reason to put it out there, successful or not.

 

[whipper]

They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.

Does he have various aliases, and a smashed window at his home?