comment by Jake Moon (U11781)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
I clicked through a read the whole article. Despite it's tabloidy framing, it turned out that the Daily Mail's write-up was rather more nuanced than the OP's verdict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier League highlights the tribunal rejected some of Man City’s arguments.

If associated sponsorship not at fair market value “competition will be distorted as the club would be benefitting from a subsidy”

Rules not to discriminate against clubs from “Gulf region”

https://x.com/robharris/status/1843284653446504458?s=46&t=bPTrpdgNggCdz9igvhmVyw

Reading that it doesn’t seem like a slam dunk win for City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone puts it better than me as per the below:

'Rules are good, there should be rules.
Just not the ones you proposed, implement, and unfairly applied, as those are unlawful'.

PL - 'the panel admits there should be rules'.

comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by downtheplughole (U22523)
posted 24 minutes ago
just the other islamist owners at Aston Villa and Newcastle that have back your lot (thanks for the ignore and block). you are a bunch of dishonest rule breakers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not fond of the way authoritarian petro-states and dodgy billionaires have warped the dynamics of our sport, but this kind of bigotry can fuсk right off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just saw that, WOW! that's a warped and bigoted perspective right there, not sure why anyone would happily put that out there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple answer, they hold bigoted views, which distort their perspective so they are not afraid to put it out there!

City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by downtheplughole (U22523)
posted 24 minutes ago
just the other islamist owners at Aston Villa and Newcastle that have back your lot (thanks for the ignore and block). you are a bunch of dishonest rule breakers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not fond of the way authoritarian petro-states and dodgy billionaires have warped the dynamics of our sport, but this kind of bigotry can fuсk right off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just saw that, WOW! that's a warped and bigoted perspective right there, not sure why anyone would happily put that out there?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple answer, they hold bigoted views, which distort their perspective so they are not afraid to put it out there!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like it V, just find it tough to go saying it out loud on a forum like this

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Organically?

Monty fekin Don in the house.

So just for the uninformed amongst us this is not connected in anyway to the other charges City are facing?

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 1 minute ago
City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Organically?

Monty fekin Don in the house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you think of that response yourself Boris or did you get Abu Dhabi to do it for you?

I’ve read the whole judgment.

Think both sides will be fairly pleased with the outcome.

comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 1 minute ago
So just for the uninformed amongst us this is not connected in anyway to the other charges City are facing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, nothing at all to do with it.

From wider reading on this, it seems as though City's challenge to the existing rules as fundamentally unfair, and on this it failed. The tribunal has upheld the principle that the associated party transaction rules (APT) prevents anti-competitive dynamics in the sport. Meanwhile, it has pointed out certain inconsistencies in the application of these rules, namely in the way that they haven't covered shareholder loans to clubs at low interest. (By the way, I read that City until relatively recently had no objection to that loophole.) This seems to me perfectly reasonable. We want to have a set of rules that applies to all clubs and constrains any kind of artificial financial support by the ownership, regardless of ownership model, subsidy mechanisms, and geographical location.

So taking away the partisan spin, it seems like this ruling is a good outcome: reinforcing rules that prevent anti-competitive forces; refining the rules so that they are applied consistently.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll never find a City fan who tells you that we grew organically.
We were fortunate to have an owner with a vision who was willing to put his money into the club in order to grow the business.

This is what you are all referring to as cheating. Even though, there was no FFP/PSR at the time.

With regards to the 115 case, I would say hold your horses.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 1 minute ago
So just for the uninformed amongst us this is not connected in anyway to the other charges City are facing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, nothing at all to do with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should read social media, everyone going hysterical and trying to link it to the 130 charges case.

It's a complete non event and the outcome was expected.

If they get off with all of the 130 charges then it's going to be bedlam and potentially the end of the PL in its current form for sure.

I still don't see what their defence can possibly be on any of the 130 other than saying it's unfair because we aren't really a big club so we need to use a Prince to be relevant. It's not much of a defence is it but it's all they have.

comment by Jake Moon (U11781)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 1 minute ago
So just for the uninformed amongst us this is not connected in anyway to the other charges City are facing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, nothing at all to do with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should read social media, everyone going hysterical and trying to link it to the 130 charges case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Id steer clear from most people’s analysis of it, including a fair few journalists that should know better!

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 7 seconds ago
Look like Man Cs* model of trillionare owners fundin there own teem thru ‘sponsorship’ usurp share-owners helpin out there beliven generationul team with zero interessed lones

Arrivederci soccer*👋
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Football
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
Football is fine
A well-run sport with equalitty 4 all

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jake Moon (U11781)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 1 minute ago
So just for the uninformed amongst us this is not connected in anyway to the other charges City are facing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, nothing at all to do with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
You should read social media, everyone going hysterical and trying to link it to the 130 charges case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Id steer clear from most people’s analysis of it, including a fair few journalists that should know better!



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
From wider reading on this, it seems as though City's challenge to the existing rules as fundamentally unfair, and on this it failed. The tribunal has upheld the principle that the associated party transaction rules (APT) prevents anti-competitive dynamics in the sport. Meanwhile, it has pointed out certain inconsistencies in the application of these rules, namely in the way that they haven't covered shareholder loans to clubs at low interest. (By the way, I read that City until relatively recently had no objection to that loophole.) This seems to me perfectly reasonable. We want to have a set of rules that applies to all clubs and constrains any kind of artificial financial support by the ownership, regardless of ownership model, subsidy mechanisms, and geographical location.

So taking away the partisan spin, it seems like this ruling is a good outcome: reinforcing rules that prevent anti-competitive forces; refining the rules so that they are applied consistently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a fantastic summary.
Arsenal for example, with shareholder loan of more than £200m would now have to pay market interest rate on this facility which could add around £20m annually in interest payment to the club for PSR purposes.

comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll never find a City fan who tells you that we grew organically.
We were fortunate to have an owner with a vision who was willing to put his money into the club in order to grow the business.

This is what you are all referring to as cheating. Even though, there was no FFP/PSR at the time.

With regards to the 115 case, I would say hold your horses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never seen Boris or Paul admit it once. They just change the conversation and deflect.

It's obvious what you are and what you've done. You didn't agree with the rules and you've chosen to ignore them. If you're not dealt with accordingly then all hell is going to break loose.

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll never find a City fan who tells you that we grew organically.
We were fortunate to have an owner with a vision who was willing to put his money into the club in order to grow the business.

This is what you are all referring to as cheating. Even though, there was no FFP/PSR at the time.

With regards to the 115 case, I would say hold your horses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never seen Boris or Paul admit it once. They just change the conversation and deflect.

It's obvious what you are and what you've done. You didn't agree with the rules and you've chosen to ignore them. If you're not dealt with accordingly then all hell is going to break loose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Two simpletons, what do you expect?

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)

Never seen Boris or Paul admit it once. They just change the conversation and deflect.

It's obvious what you are and what you've done. You didn't agree with the rules and you've chosen to ignore them. If you're not dealt with accordingly then all hell is going to break loose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, there's not been a single ruling by an independent court/tribunal which has found City guilty of breaking any rule.
Do you have any proof that I'm not aware of?

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
City won the one hearing they were expected to win and they all got giddy again.

You're not winning the one that actually matters let's be honest. How can you? There's nobody on earth who isn't a City fan who believes you've grown this quickly organically. It's just not possible and you all know it too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll never find a City fan who tells you that we grew organically.
We were fortunate to have an owner with a vision who was willing to put his money into the club in order to grow the business.

This is what you are all referring to as cheating. Even though, there was no FFP/PSR at the time.

With regards to the 115 case, I would say hold your horses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never seen Boris or Paul admit it once. They just change the conversation and deflect.

It's obvious what you are and what you've done. You didn't agree with the rules and you've chosen to ignore them. If you're not dealt with accordingly then all hell is going to break loose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still waiting to hear the evidence pal, tell me what I've missed?

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 14 minutes ago
It's a complete non event and the outcome was expected.

If they get off with all of the 130 charges then it's going to be bedlam and potentially the end of the PL in its current form for sure.

I still don't see what their defence can possibly be on any of the 130 other than saying it's unfair because we aren't really a big club so we need to use a Prince to be relevant. It's not much of a defence is it but it's all they have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn’t describe it as a non event or an expected outcome to be fair. There’ll be a few clubs not happy at all about it. Be interesting to see what the club does next.

If they get off with all of the 130 charges then it's going to be bedlam and potentially the end of the PL in its current form for sure.
-----------------------------------------
If City are cleared of the majority of charges then the blame will lie entirely with Richard Masters and the 2 clubs who forced through his appointment.

The legal bill is already in excess of £100m and he's hinting that it will be paid through TV money. Why should the many clubs who wanted no part in this charade be punished?

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 2 minutes ago


With regards to the 115 case, I would say hold your horses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Never seen Boris or Paul admit it once. They just change the conversation and deflect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, how precious are you?
"they're always changing the conversation"

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Insufferable-Piffle (U4388)
posted 1 minute ago
So just for the uninformed amongst us this is not connected in anyway to the other charges City are facing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

No, nothing at all to do with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers