PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jonah62]

I can’t tell you she was a bit of a wrong un. My mate was (still is) northern Irish catholic and one time she made him “break in” through the window in a balaclava and then (well you know).

…then kick her back doors in!!

 

[give it to gordon]

Would this hearing know about the other hearing outcome ?

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Not to mention all the stress and shite us City fans have add to put up with. Free pies for everyone at the next home game

And Bovril

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

My old house mate used to shag his Mrs in West Dids when he was away doing gigs.

What was his missus called ? AB ?

 

[Alaricmc]

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.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

This sounds damning too:





Clearly someone was pulling the strings back there.

 

[mcfcphil]

This sounds damning too:



View attachment 134312

Clearly someone was pulling the strings back there.

Always great game to look at the length of a redacted section and figure out what may be there.

In this case I think “Mr Lewis” would fit very nicely.

 

[Mancityphilfo2000]

Well if the stuff in the other case involving Newcastle is anything to go off the PL are fucked

As long as it wasn't pinto that leaked that email!:))

 

[oakiecokie]

Our bargaining chips have just been topped up tenfold

Makes a fucking change from the usual ones we run out of at The Etihad.

 

[Bluearmy]

Always great game to look at the length of a redacted section and figure out what may be there.

In this case I think “Mr Lewis” would fit very nicely.

Bingo