PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
True but it was also noted that emails specifically mentioned gulf state clubs but ommitted to mention american owned clubs which in itself is damning
 
It really is interesting reading the meltdown from rival fans on this.
If they don’t agree with a journalist- they must be on Abu Dhabi’s payroll
If they do agree - it’s all I knew you were on the right side, I’ve always liked your work
It’s amazing how people’s brains work when the facts stare them in the face.
It’s a no wonder people can’t think for themselves anymore.
 
It’s probably been said elsewhere so I apologise in advance… if the premier league won why have they called an emergency meeting? Why not wait till the next scheduled one? Also heard bishops comments on talkshite … no mention of the 5 year Europe ban it’s all glossed over! Sports washed by the media ?
Just saying in passing we used to stand in the gene Kelly stand and I always remember dippers coming in late ,somewhat inebriated and pushing from the back causing injuries … however it must have been my imagination …
 
Alaricmc said:
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.
Click to expand...

You don’t say much but when you do, it’s worth listening to.

Well in.
 
Canter said:
It really is interesting reading the meltdown from rival fans on this.
If they don’t agree with a journalist- they must be on Abu Dhabi’s payroll
If they do agree - it’s all I knew you were on the right side, I’ve always liked your work
It’s amazing how people’s brains work when the unpalatable facts stare them in the face.
It’s a no wonder people can’t think for themselves anymore.
Click to expand...
I this wonderful adjective needs inserting.

The same thing is happening now that happened after the CAS verdict. We were totally cleared but were fined for 'not co-operating' which amounted to not supplying Uefa with material that they could then slip out the back door to their media luvvies, and the latest court win doesn't fit with how the RDAHMeedya wanted the process to unfold. Unlawful, unfair and unreasonable. They need to get their noses in a dictionary, they seem to be struggling with what the words mean. The only aspect that the PL can lather over themselves is that APT is ok - but not as they work it! Back to the drawing board Masters and don't forget to engage a lawyer who understands what your doing. The other clubs in the PL will be delighted with another share of yer lawyers' fees!
 
KS55 said:
In addition to the main findings quoted above, it is worth noting that the tribunal ruled that City have a cause of action against the PL.
Some thought will now go into our next move, but the potential damages are extensive. Pay up, Masters, the redshirts will back you all the way. Ha ha.
Click to expand...

Get them to pay damages then use that to pay our legal fees on the 115.
 
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
✖
  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.