I'd like them to. The longer Real are in the competition, the more inevitable they become. Much like that last second Bellingham winner. It was never not going to happen.Silver Fox wrote:Do you think this City team can go to Madrid and win?
Presumably that's the sort of thing you get used to when your domestic league isn't as competitive/only has a small number of teams challenging for the top. You coast through most games just doing enough, and keep enough in reserve to switch it on when it matters.Winston Biscuit wrote:I know its quite the media narrative, but it genuinely is quite something how Real Madrid can spend much of every season not looking great, but somehow find a way of winning the big games and getting the trophies
Think it’s the case against the first ruled “unlawful” ATP rule set that the Premier League rewrote in December and City have now taken out another case against. So this news is justBRO_BOT wrote:City win court case against the Prem League re sponsorship
£20m in legal costs (to be footed by the PL) suggest it's a bit more thanSutekh wrote:Think it’s the case against the first ruled “unlawful” ATP rule set that the Premier League rewrote in December and City have now taken out another case against. So this news is justBRO_BOT wrote:City win court case against the Prem League re sponsorship
Well the PL really should be checking and foolproofing their “rules” before inflicting them on clubs so they have a chance of being upheld if put to the test.Royal Rother wrote:£20m in legal costs (to be footed by the PL) suggest it's a bit more thanSutekh wrote:Think it’s the case against the first ruled “unlawful” ATP rule set that the Premier League rewrote in December and City have now taken out another case against. So this news is justBRO_BOT wrote:City win court case against the Prem League re sponsorship.
Or maybe the clubs who make up the PL and agree to the rules shouldn't be looking for any tiny loophole to invalidate them after breaking them.Sutekh wrote:Well the PL really should be checking and foolproofing their “rules” before inflicting them on clubs so they have a chance of being upheld if put to the test.Royal Rother wrote:£20m in legal costs (to be footed by the PL) suggest it's a bit more thanSutekh wrote:
Think it’s the case against the first ruled “unlawful” ATP rule set that the Premier League rewrote in December and City have now taken out another case against. So this news is just.
City were one of 4 clubs (the others were Forest, Villa and Newcastle) to vote against the introduction.Snowflake Royal wrote:Or maybe the clubs who make up the PL and agree to the rules shouldn't be looking for any tiny loophole to invalidate them after breaking them.Sutekh wrote:Well the PL really should be checking and foolproofing their “rules” before inflicting them on clubs so they have a chance of being upheld if put to the test.Royal Rother wrote:
£20m in legal costs (to be footed by the PL) suggest it's a bit more than.
Imsure that was just because they thought they were badly written.Sutekh wrote:City were one of 4 clubs (the others were Forest, Villa and Newcastle) to vote against the introduction.Snowflake Royal wrote:Or maybe the clubs who make up the PL and agree to the rules shouldn't be looking for any tiny loophole to invalidate them after breaking them.Sutekh wrote:
Well the PL really should be checking and foolproofing their “rules” before inflicting them on clubs so they have a chance of being upheld if put to the test.
So the 4 clubs most in danger of not meeting the spending limits.Sutekh wrote:City were one of 4 clubs (the others were Forest, Villa and Newcastle) to vote against the introduction.Snowflake Royal wrote:Or maybe the clubs who make up the PL and agree to the rules shouldn't be looking for any tiny loophole to invalidate them after breaking them.Sutekh wrote:
Well the PL really should be checking and foolproofing their “rules” before inflicting them on clubs so they have a chance of being upheld if put to the test.
Yes, funny thatFrom Despair To Where? wrote:So the 4 clubs most in danger of not meeting the spending limits.Sutekh wrote:City were one of 4 clubs (the others were Forest, Villa and Newcastle) to vote against the introduction.Snowflake Royal wrote: Or maybe the clubs who make up the PL and agree to the rules shouldn't be looking for any tiny loophole to invalidate them after breaking them.
leon wrote:like all of this Man city stuff - a lot of noise and nothing will ever happen

The EPL are gonna have one hell of a legal bill. I still can't belive teams like Forest got off so lightly for trashing PSR rules. Can only assume your right and it will be a couple of points, slap on the wrist and a small fine.Sutekh wrote:And the charges saga goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with no verdict now expected to at least the summer. Then there’ll be yet another season for us all to get through, of course, as we’ll be into the appeal - and that’s bound to take another 9 months.
A lot of effort to see City probably eventually get nothing more than a small fine at most.
Users browsing this forum: 6ft Kerplunk and 4 guests