PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Indeed. This is what has been said extensively here for years now. However, I have raised one possible reason why this basic rule may be called into question. I assume there is a large body of case law which indicates that seeking a JR is impossible in our or similar situations.
I think the Advertising Standards Agency was held to be a public body, but that was because they were performing a function that the state would if it didn’t exist.

The leading case on this point is:


In fact I’ve just found a case R v Football Association ex p Football League Ltd [1993] 2 All E.R. which held that football associations are not subject to JR even though they have monopolistic powers.

So I think it’s pretty clear! :-)
 
I don't think the PL wanted to smear us, but some almighty pressure must have been applied to them by whoever did want to. Other PL clubs would be the beneficiaries of such a tactic no one else really, only lawyers.
Partly that but also perhaps they expected an early Settlement (we have form for that) rather than the expensive Panel route. Perhaps they still think that and are currently testing our acceptance limits,

One thing's for certain, they didn't expect it would focus the team, owners and fans to achieve so many cups etc..
 
I like Tolmie but didn't he get the cease and desist letters information wrong? Is this new information or just rehashing what the club has said all along?
To be fair, we need someone to stand in our corner with positivity, especially with all the negative shite being thrown at us.
 
As a long time reader of this board I really like tolmie and enjoying reading his posts. However I can’t help but feel recently he just posts ambiguous stuff on Twitter to try and farm reactions. Throw enough shit and some of it will stick approach.
That post has a whiff of certainty about it imo, like he's heard something reliable rather than being spurious.
 
yes and that is not talked about enough , it is crusial in both these cases.
Why did UEFA charge City with completely lost case. There lawers must have known
It was all political. UEFA used the legal process as a political tool and always have done that in the past. The PL leadership urged on by LFC, MUFC, Spurs, and Arsenal have made the same mistake. They think the sheer volume of charges is just a lever to curb City’s spending. Evidence doesn’t come into it because clubs always settle. Khaldoon has called their bluff.
 
I think the Advertising Standards Agency was held to be a public body, but that was because they were performing a function that the state would if it didn’t exist.

The leading case on this point is:


In fact I’ve just found a case R v Football Association ex p Football League Ltd [1993] 2 All E.R. which held that football associations are not subject to JR even though they have monopolistic powers.

So I think it’s pretty clear! :-)
Has there been any legislation on this since then?
Do we know what powers the regulator will have?
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.