| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:00 - Sep 8 with 1416 views | Cotty |
The charges haven’t been dropped though, this was just dispute over the rules. |  | |  |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:01 - Sep 8 with 1408 views | JimmyJazz |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:00 - Sep 8 by Cotty |
The charges haven’t been dropped though, this was just dispute over the rules. |
Let me correct that for you
The charges haven’t been dropped YET though |  |
| |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:17 - Sep 8 with 1306 views | Bramidan |
Oh my word, the thin edge of the wedge.
It roles on for Man City to escape.
How about an asterisk against everything they won and award it to the runner up in the competition.
Cheating, just spending money on legal advisors so they can wriggle off the hook. |  | | |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:42 - Sep 8 with 1199 views | nshearman1 |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:17 - Sep 8 by Bramidan |
Oh my word, the thin edge of the wedge.
It roles on for Man City to escape.
How about an asterisk against everything they won and award it to the runner up in the competition.
Cheating, just spending money on legal advisors so they can wriggle off the hook. |
Agreed, strong smell of a double deal done and dusted. | | | |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:53 - Sep 8 with 1142 views | bsw72 |
Interesting that CIty have acknowledged that the APT rules are valid and binding without amendement, and both parties will make no further comments. Suggests confidential financial settlement by City with both parties signing an NDA on the details.
No doubt part of the legal manouvering/bartering ahead of the fallout of the larger set of charges. |  | | |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 18:04 - Sep 8 with 1106 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
This was completely unrelated to the 110 charges that are currently being investigated.
It's about the 'commercial value' of deals agreed with club owners, to prevent a backdoor way of injecting excess income into the club. The 'test' is whether or not the deal is at 'market value'.
Man City had challenged these rules (presumably because the wanted to exploit commercial deals with their wealthy Arab owners to inflate income) and won a partial victory based on a couple of technicalities in the APT rules that were not legally enforceable (but not the wider intent and substance). The PL corrected these technicalities and Man City have now accepted that the rules are valid. The Premier League effectively won in the end, as Man City were effectively trying to void the entire APT rules. That failed, and APT stands.
This all came about when the PL blocked a new Man City sponsorship deal a couple of years ago. | | | |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 18:54 - Sep 8 with 932 views | Trequartista |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 18:04 - Sep 8 by SuffolkPunchFC |
This was completely unrelated to the 110 charges that are currently being investigated.
It's about the 'commercial value' of deals agreed with club owners, to prevent a backdoor way of injecting excess income into the club. The 'test' is whether or not the deal is at 'market value'.
Man City had challenged these rules (presumably because the wanted to exploit commercial deals with their wealthy Arab owners to inflate income) and won a partial victory based on a couple of technicalities in the APT rules that were not legally enforceable (but not the wider intent and substance). The PL corrected these technicalities and Man City have now accepted that the rules are valid. The Premier League effectively won in the end, as Man City were effectively trying to void the entire APT rules. That failed, and APT stands.
This all came about when the PL blocked a new Man City sponsorship deal a couple of years ago. |
If they've come to a settlement, as opposed to Man City dropping the action, and theyhave agreed the PL were correct over APT rules, what was in it for Man City? We'll probably find out when the 110 charges all lapse. |  |
| |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 21:59 - Sep 8 with 632 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:53 - Sep 8 by bsw72 |
Interesting that CIty have acknowledged that the APT rules are valid and binding without amendement, and both parties will make no further comments. Suggests confidential financial settlement by City with both parties signing an NDA on the details.
No doubt part of the legal manouvering/bartering ahead of the fallout of the larger set of charges. |
They were amended back in November, to address the areas that were not legally enforceable, and Man City had a positive ruling on last Summer. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 22:30 - Sep 8 with 496 views | HighgateBlue |
| In today’s least surprising news ….. on 17:01 - Sep 8 by JimmyJazz |
Let me correct that for you
The charges haven’t been dropped YET though |
The charges are not going to be dropped.
Why is it such a surprise that the parties came to an agreement after the Premier League amended the rules to resolve the issues that Leicester had won on. the Premier League did not drop anything in that case - they lost, and then they amended the rules in such a way that Leicester's arguments would no longer scupper them. So they settled the dispute.
The charges to which you refer are still extant, and the settlement of a different dispute is not going to affect that. It's taking a long time, and it's deeply unsatisfactory that it's not public, given the importance of the game to the public, but just because it's private and it's taking a long time does not mean that the Premier League are not fighting. They are. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
