Media discussion - 2024/25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prestwich_Blue said:
And as you cogently pointed out a short while ago, when demolishing the argument that time-barring was a 'loophole', it was in UEFA's rules. The contract said that he would only get 6 months if we were a EFL side when he left. We'd handed back our PL share so we weren't a PL side at that point. That was the legal agreement and we enforced.
Click to expand...
That’s where we disagree my friend. A loophole (at least to me) is a term in a contract that is exploited after its formation, by one of the parties, usually due to some ambiguity in the wording, which was plainly the case with Royle.

Whereas the time bar, and what it meant, would have been completely apparent to the parties at the outset and was a core term of the agreement between the club and UEFA. The scope and reach of the limitation period being clear. I know it was litigated by UEFA, but dishonestly so. Of course they fucking knew those charges were time barred. Are they acutely suggesting they couldn’t count?

Whereas with Royle, it was a bespoke term of the contract that was plainly open to interpretation. So legitimate to call that a loophole.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You could argue that but I'm not sure we were in a position to give £400k away that easily. By the end of that relegation season we reported a bank balance of £12,000 and a loss of nearly £14m.

And as you cogently pointed out a short while ago, when demolishing the argument that time-barring was a 'loophole', it was in UEFA's rules. The contract said that he would only get 6 months if we were a EFL side when he left. We'd handed back our PL share so we weren't a PL side at that point. That was the legal agreement and we enforced.
Click to expand...

This is the wrong way round. We hadn't handed back our PL share when we sacked Royle. That was his point - he argued that we remained a PL club until we formally completed the share transfer whereby our membership of the PL ended. That usually happens at the end of June or the start of July in the summer after relegation.

City sacked Royle in the week after the final game of the previous season. The club argued that, because our relegation had been confirmed at that point, he'd failed to maintain our PL status and should therefore be treated as being dismissed with City as a second-tier club.

Without seeing the precise wording of the contract, I was surprised that Royle won at first instance. It seems to me that the position asserted by the club carried greater logic: if you're fired after getting promoted or keeping us in the PL, you get more compensation than if we sack you after getting relegated or not getting promoted.
 
petrusha said:
This is the wrong way round. We hadn't handed back our PL share when we sacked Royle. That was his point - he argued that we remained a PL club until we formally completed the share transfer whereby our membership of the PL ended. That usually happens at the end of June or the start of July in the summer after relegation.

City sacked Royle in the week after the final game of the previous season. The club argued that, because our relegation had been confirmed at that point, he'd failed to maintain our PL status and should therefore be treated as being dismissed with City as a second-tier club.

Without seeing the precise wording of the contract, I was surprised that Royle won at first instance. It seems to me that the position asserted by the club carried greater logic: if you're fired after getting promoted or keeping us in the PL, you get more compensation than if we sack you after getting relegated or not getting promoted.
Click to expand...
Thanks Peter. I think I was getting mixed up with Nick de Marco's argument in the Leicester PSR appeal. In that case, I can see @gordondaviesmoustache's argument is a very valid one.
 
petrusha said:
This is the wrong way round. We hadn't handed back our PL share when we sacked Royle. That was his point - he argued that we remained a PL club until we formally completed the share transfer whereby our membership of the PL ended. That usually happens at the end of June or the start of July in the summer after relegation.

City sacked Royle in the week after the final game of the previous season. The club argued that, because our relegation had been confirmed at that point, he'd failed to maintain our PL status and should therefore be treated as being dismissed with City as a second-tier club.

Without seeing the precise wording of the contract, I was surprised that Royle won at first instance. It seems to me that the position asserted by the club carried greater logic: if you're fired after getting promoted or keeping us in the PL, you get more compensation than if we sack you after getting relegated or not getting promoted.
Click to expand...
Exactly !! Nobody in the country would have considered City a PL club when we sacked Royle. Technically he was - but anybody suggesting City should have taken the moral high ground and paid him up is mental. Royle was trying to exploit a loophole which ultimately failed.

Football Management is a cruel business - but they are very well rewarded for the volatility.

That said, I know a lot about this case from people involved and City royally fucked up ( excuse the pun ). They jumped the gun with the sacking and were very surprised to win the appeal, even though most would think it correct as City in everybody’s minds were relegated when they sacked him.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
City instructed Kuits!
Click to expand...

Kuits were Franny's personal lawyers and, when he bought into the club, became the club's lawyers as well basically until Thaksin arrived. Bryan Bodek, the partner who dealt with the City stuff, was on the board for a while, as well.

When I was a recently qualified solicitor working in Manchester, Kuits were recruiting to find an assistant to help Bodek with the City work. I interviewed for it and was offered the job, but turned it down as it came with a 10% pay cut compared with what I was already on at the time.
 
petrusha said:
Have a couple of urgent things to do so haven't read this yet, but, for anyone who's interested, you can find the Court of Appeal's Judgment in Manchester City Football Club Plc v Royle here.
Click to expand...

Really enjoyed reading that. Agree completely with the Judgment, despite my previous view on the Judgment in the court below, but it reinforces my previously expressed view. Having won, City should have not pursued their costs imo. It’s clear from the Judgment that the Mercantile Court did not consider the prospective earnings point, and if an HHJ missed the point, then Royle, doubtless acting on legal advice, shouldn’t be criticised for pursuing it. It plainly was a huge distance from a frivolous claim based on the Judgment. Plus, he had no choice but to respond to the appeal.

The club won, and that should have been the end of it imo. It’s just a personal view, but it’s founded in the memories I have of (inter alia) Gillingham and Blackburn. I don’t expect everybody to agree.

Took a couple of further things from that. Learned a new word: propitiate. Like it.

And the judgment of Lord Justice Gage is what, word for word, mine would have said.

I agree with both judgments and have nothing to add.
Click to expand...

Those ones always make me smile!

Edit: And you can see from that Judgment what a good operator Pannick is. Those guys are on another planet.
 
Last edited:
ChicagoBlue said:
Madrid, and the Spanish media that does their bidding, are old pros at planting “fishing expedition” stories about all of the best players in the world coming to them, especially Spanish players.

To be honest, they really are one of the most attractive clubs in the world and any player would be flattered to be courted by them.

However, the manner in which they “tap up” players is a disgrace. They constantly seek to entice players by showing interest, and then expect players to angle for a move. Then, they seek to get the players on the cheap…as they did with Mbappe!

Worst kept secret in the world was announce you’re interested when the player has 18 mos to 2 yrs left on his contract. Dangle the carrot with only a year to go and seek to get them on the cheap, with the threat that they’ll leave for nothing in 12 mos. Thereafter, a player just runs down his contract, knowing he will now be able to translate a good portion of any “non-transfer fee” into a signing bonus and fat contract.

It’s so transparent as to be ridiculous, yet they get away with it repeatedly.

Here’s hoping Rodri is settled and happy enough to sign a long term extension and eschew any untoward advances. The problem, of course, is that as he grows older, the PL becomes such a slog, whereas in Madrid he has sunshine, less games, less travel for Spain, and the ability to relax (or even be rested) in at least half the La Liga games they play!

If we can keep him until 32, it’ll be quite the achievement.
Click to expand...
Why? Exactly how many of our key players have they taken so far?
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Not discounting the quality of any opinions on here, only the ability to parse words in pursuit of argument.

There are many posters on here that I both admire and to whom I pay attention, of which he is one. That doesn’t, though, predispose me to genuflection, especially when it’s a pedantic point of differing opinions.

Indeed, he has shown his class by following the exchange with a desire to not only draw it to a close, but then immediately “Like” a post of mine in another thread. That tells me something about the man and has done nothing negative to my previously held high opinion of his posts in general.
Click to expand...

Disrespectful motherfucker.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Not discounting the quality of any opinions on here, only the ability to parse words in pursuit of argument.

There are many posters on here that I both admire and to whom I pay attention, of which he is one. That doesn’t, though, predispose me to genuflection, especially when it’s a pedantic point of differing opinions.

Indeed, he has shown his class by following the exchange with a desire to not only draw it to a close, but then immediately “Like” a post of mine in another thread. That tells me something about the man and has done nothing negative to my previously held high opinion of his posts in general.
Click to expand...
It’s just a football forum mate, and we’re all blues.
 
Kmezn said:
View attachment 130987
This seems normal somehow.
www.espn.co.uk

Doping agency asks to test 2 dead Norway players

Norway's men's team received a visit from the country's anti-doping agency this week, but while this is a usual occurrence in football, what made this instance remarkable was the players they asked to test.
www.espn.co.uk www.espn.co.uk
Click to expand...
Simply targeting Haaland with 2 other random names to make it look legit. They do it in my line of work all the time … but with living people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top