Absolutely this. They way the PL have introduced rules since 2008 has been like some **** painting double yellows around your car and giving you a ticket while you are in the shop.Technically correct. However, if we establish in this first case that the organisation that has brought the 115 charges, is instigating rules specifically designed to discriminate against us, it will hugely undermine the PL position and credibility.
Technically correct. However, if we establish in this first case that the organisation that has brought the 115 charges, is instigating rules specifically designed to discriminate against us, it will hugely undermine the PL position and credibility.
Not in my estimation. In the 115 charges case, the Prem still have to prove a massive conspiracy of unheard of proportions and would be accusing everyone from our executives to the independent auditing companies of being in on it. The evidence would have to be overwhelming to prove such a claim.Valid take. By that logic though, if we don't, the position in that case is also largely weakened.
I don’t think so. A win strengthens our case but a defeat means we are in the same situation we were if we didn’t bring this action.Valid take. By that logic though, if we don't, the position in that case is also largely weakened.
These associated party rules which we are challenging were nor even in place when the "115" breaches are alleged to have taken place. If we win this High Court cases it's a nice bit of muscle-flexing but it will have no bearing on the actual substance of the charges.I don’t think so. A win strengthens our case but a defeat means we are in the same situation we were if we didn’t bring this action.
Stage one: Did the PL break the law?
If they didn’t then it’s as you were
Stage two: Prove your accusations
Hope he’s not bluffing.I would imagine that will be 1 of many items included. Khaldoon says we know everything;)
Hope he’s not bluffing.
I agree bluffing is likely against his nature but he is a very successful international businessman, so he will use the dark arts occasionally.He’s no bluffer & after watching his EOY review I thought he name checked the ladies from the FA & Premier league to display a strong respectful relationship was deliberate.
Six weeks seems a very short amount of time to hear our case.
I disagree for my part. I followed it with interest at the time and was surprised when it went quiet. I’ve been expecting it since or at least confirmation that City hadn’t decided to follow up on it.
City abstained from the vote on the basis that they couldn’t vote on something they strongly believed was illegal and that their lawyers had advised them not to sign. City advised the PL not to continue. The PL did continue and voted it through with the caveat that the Directors of the clubs could not be privately sued if there was any comeback.
City warned that they were prepared to challenge on that basis. I didn’t think, on balance, that they were bluffing.
My second surprise was only that the date of the hearing had been leaked.
I do however agree that some posters get overly excited or despondent with each bit of new news but you can’t stop that. People in general just want all this to be over and come to BM as a way of avoiding all the biased reporting elsewhere. BM might be an echo chamber but it’s an escape for most.
Personally I don’t care what rivals think (genuinely) I don’t even care if we have broken rules that I believe were unfair in the first place.
City did the right thing to get us where we are. The rules were constructed by our rivals instead of a truly independent body acting in the interests of the game as a whole. City were the only club that voted for Independent governance…not the actions of a club planning to ruin the game but one that wants to be treated equally.