The end of an era for City

comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 28 minutes ago
Can you point out to me where I said City weren’t challenging the APT rules btw?
———

By pretending that the amendments are somehow not APT. They are, ergo they are challenging APT.

‘City don’t want to tear it up‘ - yeah, they do, the amendments, which are APT as of Feb.

It’s just slimey semantics and peak City.

Like I said, sometimes it’s best to hold your hands up 🙌
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And as I said, it’s semantics to morons that don’t even know what the changes are that City are challenging. I said they weren’t challenging the principle of having APT regs in place, which they aren’t. That’s quite a big deal given it’s the complete opposite of what you suggested they were crying about.

It’s projection given it’s actually simplistic semantics from people that don’t know enough about it to comment, yet seem to be far more emotive about the subject regardless.

For what it’s worth, I thought some of City’s arguments had validity, some didn’t and wouldn’t be surprised if there’s no changes to the regulations, it would be minor amendments if anything. That it’s created the furore it’s done with some is stupidly absurd and exactly why these are supposed to be kept completely confidential.

Oh dear.

Look, you can call people names Melts, I really don’t care.

City are challenging the APT rules.

It’s that simple and that’s all I’ve said really. If you want to slither and slime about pretending they’re not, whinging about how it just some of the rules and not all of them, crack on but you sound like a quack lawyer who’ll say just about anything instead of just holding your hands up.

Your call.

I think what will happen is City will get a 12 point reduction or something and then spend the entire season appealing it and then it will get reduced to 6 or 8 points.

Even with this points reduction they will still get top 3 and then next season they will be up there challenging for the title again as per.

No biggie. Man City won't get relegated and all this will be forgotten in a couple of years.

comment by Robbing Hoody - I want to play by my own rules and if I can’t I’ll sue you (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
Oh dear.

Look, you can call people names Melts, I really don’t care.

City are challenging the APT rules.

It’s that simple and that’s all I’ve said really. If you want to slither and slime about pretending they’re not, whinging about how it just some of the rules and not all of them, crack on but you sound like a quack lawyer who’ll say just about anything instead of just holding your hands up.

Your call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That’s not all you said though, is it? That’s not where this conversation started at all, it actually started with you saying it was frivolous and subsequently saying city wanted to be able to sign sponsorships with companies they own and not have any limit on it. That’s now just you’ve been trying to drag it because you have no idea what they’re challenging to even start to debate whether they had a valid challenge to it or not, you just went straight to it being obviously City in the wrong and even said the PL should be able to implement their own rules seemingly regardless of they’re lawful or not.

I’ve never pretended they’re not challenging the APT rules, that’s just a point you’ve made up in your own head - the point I was making was pretty obvious that they aren’t challenging the overall regulations which is what you were suggesting they were by crying about something they weren’t. It’s quite a big difference if we’re actually going to have a debate on whether City’s arguments have merit or not, which was the first point I responded to you on this thread about - it quite clearly not being a frivolous action.

This is a very similar conversation to ones I’d sometimes have with a certain United fan where it becomes debate of semantics rather than any actual points…

I’m not calling anyone specifically names either. I’m pointing out what moronic people do. Your call…

That’s all just so disingenuous. Ewwwww.

About the only true thing was that it wasn’t frivolous, which I agree was the wrong word to use.

They’re challenging the tightening of the rules on what constitutes connected parties I believe. Is that right? Even if it was I’d expect a nice dollop of spin on top from you now.

‘They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.’ - they’ve literally done this with the amendments being implemented. You repeatedly saying otherwise is just spin.

‘suggesting City are wanting the whole APT regulations gone.‘ - more disingenuous nonsense. No-one said this.

‘I’m not calling anyone specifically names either.‘ - okay Saul.

You have a nice day.

Melton is Saul n Boris is My Cusin Vinny

Perhaps you would like to outline City's recent case against the PL, you seem to know more about the details than anyone else.

Feel free to read back through the thread and say what’s disingenuous in there.

Why would I put spin on it? It’s a submission by city containing specific arguments against particular regulations, what even is there to spin in that? I’ve already said I didn’t think a lot of city’s arguments had merit and I expect there to be either no or very minor amendments to the regulations. I’ll caveat that with that opinion being based on what football lawyers who have seen the submission have said, it’s not in the public domain so we don’t have any detailed arguments whatsoever. Personally I’m in agreement with the APT regulations and think they’re a necessity so I’m not particularly wanting any big changes myself.

“‘They didn’t challenge the implementation of the APT rules.’ - they’ve literally done this with the amendments being implemented. You repeatedly saying otherwise is just spin.“

There is a world of difference between challenging the original implementation of APT rules and their principles and challenging subsequent changes to how they are defined and assessed. In the first one, then you’re challenging having APTs regulated at all. That would have been a hugely significant thing to challenge in the courts compared to what City are doing.

I don’t think you can say anyone else is being disingenuous when you make a comment like City are crying because they want companies they own to be able to sponsor them and pay whatever they like. Not only is that just factually wholly wrong, if you think that then you are completely suggesting that City want to get rid of APTs. You’re also saying they want to get rid of RPTs too by saying it! And you say I’m the one saying disingenuous nonsense by saying that’s what it suggests?! I mean, come on…

You can deflect by ironically continuing to call me a name while getting annoyed when it’s responded to all you want, but if you make comments like that and say things like a two week behind closed doors court case is frivolous then you can’t complain when you’re pulled up on it.

Have a nice day too.

Think this is a bite

comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 19 seconds ago
Think this is a bite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What joyous fun if it is…