Zero Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 (edited) I am wondering whether the upcoming voting would be another case subject to Man City’s legal challenge since it is initiated by EPLs statement which Man City lawyer regarded as “far from truth”, aka misleading. Man City got my full support anyway, as long as it can blown away the cartel shit Edited October 9 by Zero Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 16 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: You’d actually have to have proof of a rejection of a sponsorship offer, not simply a supposition. Have we had sponsorships rejected by the PL? You don’t think Man City and NUFC have that proof? In City’s case we even know 3 sponsorships were rejected, one after stalling their own procedure unlawfully for 12 months. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 17 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Doesn’t look remotely like that tbf It absolutely does. For weeks you’ve been going on that nothing would come of this, surely it was a PL win as there was silence, etc. You’ve been proven spectacularly wrong and still you keep downplaying the significance of City shooting massive holes in this dodgy regulation framework that, as per the judgement, was specifically designed to be anti-competitive in parts, and therefore unlawful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiesteve710 Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 10 hours ago, LFEE said: Yes remember the one. Wasn’t sure if it was actually part of the CAT case or just prelims of the CAT case. Think that was next in line. Anyway like you say not long after the takeover went through but only because SA paid £1b to cover the piracy issue. You're right, it wasn't part of any substantive hearing, it was the PL's application to have the hearing heard in private. Iirc the PLs lawyers had found something that had to be revealed to nufc in the disclosure process and this piece of evidence would form part of nufc's case. Whatever it was, the PL wasn't prepared to have it revealed in public. The OP is correct that the PLs legal team were laughably bad. They only had one argument which they made repeatedly and didn't reallt expand upon. Even the judge was visibly losing patience with them towards the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 4 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: It absolutely does. For weeks you’ve been going on that nothing would come of this, surely it was a PL win as there was silence, etc. You’ve been proven spectacularly wrong and still you keep downplaying the significance of City shooting massive holes in this dodgy regulation framework that, as per the judgement, was specifically designed to be anti-competitive in parts, and therefore unlawful. I never said nowt would come of it - I said it wasn’t the magic bullet and the rules wouldn’t come crashing down as a result. And they haven’t, and we’re no closer to getting crazy sponsorship money than we were this time last week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 9 minutes ago, Unbelievable said: You don’t think Man City and NUFC have that proof? In City’s case we even know 3 sponsorships were rejected, one after stalling their own procedure unlawfully for 12 months. Man City do, where’s ours? I don’t give two shites if Man City have it. It’s us I’m concerned about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 We’ll only know the significance of this when we know what the new rules are. We can debate it until the cows come home until then, but nobody really knows tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 15 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Man City do, where’s ours? I don’t give two shites if Man City have it. It’s us I’m concerned about. Was it public knowledge that Man City had the deals denied prior to their legal action? (I genuinely don’t know). If so, we’ve got nowt. If not, we won’t know what we’ve had knocked back by the league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 18 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Man City do, where’s ours? I don’t give two shites if Man City have it. It’s us I’m concerned about. I said the club (!) knows. Don’t you think the club will know what sponsorship deals they put forward or what happened to them..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 18 hours ago, WilliamPS said: Man City say yes, the PL says no. Be another legal scrap before we know who is right Worryingly there are already PL club spokesmen giving anonymous quotes in the Times that they are prepared to back the PL in future legal fights over this. I guess their grip on world domination depends on this so they will throw everything at it, including making sure enough smaller clubs fall in line with them. Money doesn't appear to be an issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Quote City have their support within English football’s top flight but many clubs are said to be deeply concerned about the latest developments. One club chief said: “This latest legal threat is just bullying behaviour by Manchester City and there is a feeling now that the other clubs need to stand up to them. “The tribunal has found that the Associated Party Transaction system works but that it needs some changes. If City are determined to have another costly legal battle then it could well backfire.” Another club figure said: “This is damaging the Premier League. Manchester City need to be very careful here.” The level of animosity between City, some of their rivals and the league has reached unprecedented levels, with the clubs now due to attend an emergency meeting next week to discuss the potential impact of the outcome on a private arbitration hearing that was held in June. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 I love how people are praising Man City as the ‘good guys’ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 15 minutes ago, TRon said: Worryingly there are already PL club spokesmen giving anonymous quotes in the Times that they are prepared to back the PL in future legal fights over this. I guess their grip on world domination depends on this so they will throw everything at it, including making sure enough smaller clubs fall in line with them. Money doesn't appear to be an issue. Wait until the small clubs realize the current system in fact would not benefit them and would instead make them become Everton / Leicester City / Villa, forcing them to sell players for peanuts in other to escape from penalty I am pretty sure back at 2021 Everton and Villa were those voting for the rules in order to stop us from being competitive. After three years they knew they have been fooled. If Crystal Palace got relegated this season, suffering from a huge loss of income, they will change their stand in the future as well. The PSR rule is simply unsustainable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said: Man City do, where’s ours? I don’t give two shites if Man City have it. It’s us I’m concerned about. It's a private process, the only reason we know about Man City's rejected deals is the arbitration. They stalled and rejected three Man City deals, it's very likely that they've done similar with us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Just to add, those promoted from Championship needed to invest heavily to stand a chance to survive. Which, by the rulebook, is pushing them to violate the PSR rules. Nottingham took the risk and even though they are playing the marginal game, they are far superior then the likes of Ipswich and Soton, who are not dare to spend and simply stand no chance for the survival battle. The PSR rules is ruining the promotion / relegation system as well. It needs to be completely taken down. Man City is not angel but these rules are fucking Satan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 City are saying that because the APT rules were found to be illegal on certain grounds, everything has to change, and not just the grounds that were found to be suspect. That sounds absurd to me. They seem to be threatening further legal action to try and prevent the Premiership from making the particular changes that the tribunal pointed out are needed. The likes of Martin Samuel seem to hail City's arrival on the scene as a way of opening up competition and liberating the clubs from the tyranny of a cartel. In practice, it's nothing of the sort. They are out to destroy the competition and establish a dominant position. Through all the years of investigation that that have taken place, they have been unco-operative, aggressive and selfish. Jumping on their bandwagon in the hope that somehow we will benefit is to invite further chaos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Everyone’s out for themselves, every single club. Some because they want to crush the opposition, some because they don’t want to get crushed. Some are worse than others but it all boils down to everyone wanting to fuck over others for their own gain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 3 minutes ago, Cronky said: City are saying that because the APT rules were found to be illegal on certain grounds, everything has to change, and not just the grounds that were found to be suspect. That sounds absurd to me. They seem to be threatening further legal action to try and prevent the Premiership from making the particular changes that the tribunal pointed out are needed. The likes of Martin Samuel seem to hail City's arrival on the scene as a way of opening up competition and liberating the clubs from the tyranny of a cartel. In practice, it's nothing of the sort. They are out to destroy the competition and establish a dominant position. Through all the years of investigation that that have taken place, they have been unco-operative, aggressive and selfish. Jumping on their bandwagon in the hope that somehow we will benefit is to invite further chaos. That's exactly their point - the APT rules were unlawful because of the omission of shareholder loans, therefore the APT rules were never lawful in their entirety. I don't think the ruling from the Tribunal is clear on that either way. If one part of a contract is unlawful, does that invalidate the whole thing? Presumably not, although this isn't contract law... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahoneys Tache Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 Somewhere, a former employee of the FA is scratching his balls and saying ‘I fucking telt them. But would they listen? NoooOOooo.’ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelphish Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 35 minutes ago, mouldy_uk said: I love how people are praising Man City as the ‘good guys’ Enemy of my enemy etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 7 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: That's exactly their point - the APT rules were unlawful because of the omission of shareholder loans, therefore the APT rules were never lawful in their entirety. I don't think the ruling from the Tribunal is clear on that either way. If one part of a contract is unlawful, does that invalidate the whole thing? Presumably not, although this isn't contract law... Well it seems to be that the task of the Premier League is to amend the rules so that they now are lawful in their entirety. That doesn't mean that every rule has to change - only the ones identified by the tribunal. What City seem to be doing is threatening to prolong this legal battle, and perhaps also to make some sort of compensation claim that covers the duration of the APT rules. Unfortunately I would imagine that other clubs could do the same. The point of the Tribunal was to settle this dispute - City seem determined to keep the pot boiling for their own ends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 8 hours ago, Stottie said: None of the main European Super League clubs, Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Tottenham have any credibility in talking about the "integrity" of the Premier League. They wanted to reduce it to something they played their reserves in. To something that would not reward any other club with a European place. They also, and stay with me here, tried to grab control of professional football in England with project big picture, which everyone forgets about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 2 minutes ago, Cronky said: Well it seems to be that the task of the Premier League is to amend the rules so that they now are lawful in their entirety. That doesn't mean that every rule has to change - only the ones identified by the tribunal. What City seem to be doing is threatening to prolong this legal battle, and perhaps also to make some sort of compensation claim that covers the duration of the APT rules. Unfortunately I would imagine that other clubs could do the same. The point of the Tribunal was to settle this dispute - City seem determined to keep the pot boiling for their own ends. Good, eventually the smaller clubs will be asking why they are losing £4 per season or so because of legal bills. Let’s not forget that in the last month, the Premier League has lost 2 legal battles against its own member clubs. 2 battles they said they would win. You have Everton on the sidelines possibly waiting for their takeover to go through to also take them to court. It’s ok for Arsenal etc to lose £4m a season, but what about the likes of Ipswich? What about when the clubs like us and Villa who never voted for these rules, don’t agree with them etc all of a sudden asking why we are paying a legal bill to keep something we didn’t vote for, and warned against? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 1 hour ago, Unbelievable said: I said the club (!) knows. Don’t you think the club will know what sponsorship deals they put forward or what happened to them..? Sure, they definitely will. And if they did then they have a case. Just saying that there hasn’t been a squeak about this - its just conjecture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mase Posted October 9 Share Posted October 9 20 hours ago, Guybrush said: Can we spend hundreds of billions or not? The only question I need answering. Man U do whilst being riddled with debt and it’s not a problem.. £800m and Johnny Evans is their MOTM against Villa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now