From what I’ve read the areas where Abu Dhabi FC have been successful shouldn’t have much bearing on the other case.
It looks like all the bought-and-paid-for vermin like Samuels are reporting it as some sort of huge victory for the cheats but in reality it’s anything but.
One can only hope the PL are even more determined to put these cunts to the sword on the 130 charges.
6 Likes
Don’t the independent commission themselves decide on the sentence? I have no love for them but I think it’s pretty clear Everton, Notts forest and Leicester were used as pawns by the PL to get precedent in before the City case, even if those punishments were handed out by independent commission also.
3 Likes
Yeah, that was what I badly explained in my previous post.
City have been publicly arguing that if they win this case then the case of the 115 charges (now 130+) is neutered. But the PL have been clear those charges are for fraudulent accounting of income and it does not matter whether the income is from RPTs or not, or what the laws on such deals say.
3 Likes
They all deserve what they got if not more.
Also Leicester didn’t get anything.
2 Likes
The best thing about matters like this one - conplex legal cases with huge public interest value - is the fact that a summary article on the BBC suddenly means every dickwad on social media is a expert in that area of the law.
I work with/know some competition lawyers; even they don’t like competition law. It’s remarkable how IYELLALOT and Bread_Pitt on Twitter are now across all the details.
9 Likes
I have seen on SM some of the panic about the PL’s emergency meeting with all clubs. I would think this is to agree upon the committee’s requested change to integrate shareholder loans into APT, wouldn’t it? Plus to discuss the panel’s request to modify this year’s APT changes?
Btw, I wonder if there are any clubs that will be in trouble with PSR due to this rule change of shareholder loans? I’ve heard Arse have used it? For us, I can think of loans in connection to ownership for stadium development which must be outside the scope of PSR, right?
2 Likes
Sorry for replying to myself, but beyond just the punishment precedent - the worst thing would be for City to be guilty of all charges but the commission having no reference point on what the punishment should be. The Everton case helps with that - there’s also the PL needing to prove that there’s no malice or bias in their decision making.
I really know nothing about the law but my gut feel is that when we venture away from standard rules which are at least partially black and white, and into realms of malice and bias, that seems like an angle City’s lawyers could exploit. So for me, the cases last season of Everton and such I feel have helped with yesterday’s verdict.
“No, City were not being bullied or picked on because look what we did to Everton and they weren’t even being cunts with information obfuscation”.
Absolutely nothing has been done to City yet, but I really hope they we get to say “the PL have played a blinder here”.
4 Likes
Leicester and Everton probably had the promise of being able to get players from the City academy at throw away prices.
I’d be noticing how the transfer market moves there.
2 Likes
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the Leicester City charges were from the Football League as they were in relation to spending during their time in the Championship?
2 Likes
3 Likes
If only the other nineteen clubs would reply with the same email:
Dear Manchester City,
Go fuck yourselves.
10 Likes
Remember: it’s the hope that kills you. 
I for one am far past that stage, at least as far as these cunts are involved. They’ll always find loopholes and will always get away with everything.
1 Like
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE:
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason;
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;
(iv) that the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not give MCFC an opportunity to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis prior to reaching its decision and for no other reason;
(v) that the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not provide MCFC, prior to the PL’s Final Determination, with the Databank transactions entered into by other clubs, which the Board referred to in its Final Determination and for no other reason;
(vi) that in making its decision with regard to the FAB Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64;
(vii) that in making its decision with regard to the EP Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64.
The bit in bold, assuming EAG is Etihad Airways Group, what in a legal sense does ‘setting aside’ mean? What is the significance of not giving MCFC an opportunity to respond to the [redacted] Benchmarking analysis?
I think it is basically asking the court to not implement it because it is wrong. If the court agrees it overturns or ‘sets aside’ the decision.
Haven’t followed any of the detail but my guess is that it looks like City are arguing that the PL should have given City a chance to comment on the next best figure the league used to determine whether the monies given by EAG were in line with market rates?
The NYT suggests that City can pursue damages for the PL blocking the deals unlawfully
Hopefully all the hassle they are bringing to the Premier League, with the constant litigation, will result in the Premier League finding a way to kick them out.
Man City are intent on reshaping the whole thing around their wishes, and they have deep pockets and endless top class lawyers.
They are acting in bad faith, and their strategy is to tie the Premier League up in legal knots for the duration. Their Chairman warned as much a few years ago.
Kick them out.
12 Likes
They will literally burn the house down to get their way.
Pretty sad state of affairs in reality. Basically what they are saying is, “We want the PL in our image, our way, where we win every year”
They can just fuck off in my opinion. If you cant play by the rules then just fuck off.
12 Likes
Cheeky Burgerstain is off at the end of the season, according to The Athletic. A big factor (possibly the single biggest) in Pep joining them, and perhaps an indication he might also be nearing the end of his stay in Manchester?
3 Likes
Romano:
EXCLUSIVE: Sporting director of football Hugo Viana is Manchester City’s favorite candidate to replace Txiki Begiristain.
After excellent work at Sporting with several top signings including Gyokeres, Diomandé, Hjulmand and more, he’s top of #MCFC list as new director.
1 Like