PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

SebastianBlue said:
The nature of the charges do not overlap, but the implicit findings of specific malice toward City in previous rule design and enforcement do overlap, even if it is not in an official manner.

The PL have been shown to have intentionally disadvantaged City and advantaged other clubs, which will shade analysis of proceedings moving forward.

It is likely one of the reasons the PL delayed release of the Tribunal decision.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The bad faith of the PL and some of its clubs has been exposed in that Newcastle email for all to see. Judges may operate strictly on points of law but they are not stupid. It can't do City's ongoing case any harm. And that's even before we see the Tolmie bombshell emails.
 
paulchapo said:
What the premier league have done, aided and abetted by the cartel is in my opinion criminal. That should negate any bullshit charges they've hit us with as they've totally proved they're dishonest and working on behalf of our main competitors.
Click to expand...
I do wonder about the legality of this sort of behaviour. That Newcastle email has more than a whiff of corruption about it.
 
red 2 hats said:
Is it worth Lord Pannick and his team turning up tomorrow, I now expect the Premier League to wave the white flag and start negotiating our compensation claim.
Every allegation should now be null and void, heads should roll, the accusers should now be sucking our dicks.
Every media outlet should have a grovelling apology, every one of the cartel clubs should dedicate there next home programme showing our innocence.
I'd been slightly concerned with this hearing, fearing the worse but hoping for the best, now I know they've got jack shit on us and it's all been about derailing our progress
I've put in the City case we should seek at least £300 million for reputational damage, pay for our new stand and hotel, but thinking about it, I want £500 million and all the proper cheating bastards dealt with accordingly.
Click to expand...
A tad premature, but I like your thinking.
 
Quite some years ago (as far back as the UEFA case against us and long before the Premier League charges) I posted several detailed arguments about the litigation being ill-founded. Why? Because competition law (European and British) prevents "abuse of a dominant position" and "anti-competitive practices". It seemed odd to me at the time (though since then I've come to be wise to the anti-Arab investor, pro (disgraced) US investor stance, particularly at the Express and the Telegraph, and most notably the Guardian) that point never seemed to be made.

There are perhaps 100 - maybe 500 - maybe even 5,000 - more experienced commercial lawyers in the country than me, but I know my onions. Under pressure from the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and the Levy team, the Premier League was blackmailed into introducing regulations thet they knew to be unenforceable. Abuse of a dominant position. Anti-competitive. Read the judgement and see how many times those phrases appear, Nyah, nyah. Told you so.

Damage control from the Premier League is risible. They can change the rules by club vote to align with the verdict? Yes, they can. But that's for the future, not the past. We can still sue them for the two lost sponsorship deals. And we should.

In my 5,001st ranked commercial lawyer's experience, every possible allegation gets thrown into the pot. Why? To complicate. To confuse. Invented by me - the Premier League are puppets of Putin - just look at this memo supporting Russian involvement in European competitions. But these things are careful distractions. Although they allow the other party to claim victory in insigniicant areas.

Two things were important for us. Those two things were the only arguments we needed to win. And we won both. The rules on associated party transactions are anti-competitive and an abuse by the Premier League of a dominant position. And undercover funding (see Arsenal, Liverpool, the Levy club and Manchester United - we have none) by shareholder loans claiming to be 'repayable' are now part of any FFP assessment.

Anti-competitive practices.

Abuse of a dominant position.

(Hides under cover) Toldja so.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Agreed. The bad faith of the PL and some of its clubs has been exposed in that Newcastle email for all to see. Judges may operate strictly on points of law but they are not stupid. It can't do City's ongoing case any harm. And that's even before we see the Tolmie bombshell emails.
Click to expand...

You say that, but even with the "coincidence" of the timing and the Newcastle correspondence, the panel didn't find that the new rules were aimed at a particular group of clubs, largely iirc because a PL lawyer testified that the rules were in consideration for a long time and weren't targeted at Newcastle.

I think if there is any connection to the 115 case at all it is the confirmation, yet again, that witness evidence trumps circumstantial evidence. That can only be good for the club on the 115 case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top