According to some, it was the Indiana poet James Whitcomb Riley who came up with the expression when he wrote: “When I see a bird that runs like a duck and swim like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”
Critics claimed that the success of Riley – he was a bestseller and touring the world – was a poor education, which meant that he spoke the language of the common man and was able to get his point over the masses as such.
Riley died in 1916 at the age of 66, and therefore the chances that he gives his wisdom to those who rule the Roost in Premier League headquarters in Paddington, reasonably remote.
But while those who run the top flight come to terms with a different legal victory in Manchester City, they can do worse than pin his message above the door and paint on the walls, because the reality of the situation still seems to fall out Their grip.
In October, Mail Sport reported how an independent tribunal consisted of a KC, a former second senior judge in England and Wales and another judge who was at a certain point in charge of the commercial court, that the rules of the Premier League about Associated Party Transactions (APTs), brought in after the Saudi takeover of Newcastle in what a panic step seemed to be aimed at stopping the Geordies to do another city, were illegal after a legal challenge of no one but the city itself .
The four-in-a-Row champions had taken the extraordinary step after they had stopped taking sponsor deals with Etihad Airways and Abu Dhabi First Bank.
Within the ruling, three elements of APT were identified as problematic, where the most important issue is that shareholders loans (loans from stakeholders without interest or partner rates) were not subject to the same fair market reviews.
The moment City (who had insisted on the ruling to make public against the wishes of the Premier League) insisted on caution in relation to the following steps. But Chief Executive Richard Masters sang from a different hymn magazine. He heard it growing.
Instead, he told clubs that the tribunal had actually 'endorsed' the rules. Only a few adulters needed on the identified 'discreet elements'. We'll be okay, he assured.
Tried city. Simon Cliff, General Counselor, was accused by a part of bullying when he sent a warning to clubs that a sharp object could approach in the waters that are challenged. He had suggested that it was wise to wait until the panel plays his final judgment about whether the whole of the rules was actually void and void, what their opinion was. Yet the quacks were unheard of.
Later in the same month, the Premier League continued with a vote on their adapted system and went with 16 to 4.
As promised, City issued a different legal challenge. As promised, the panel came back about the first issue earlier this week and discovered that the rules – which lasted three years – were indeed 'void and not – unable to do'.
And yet, in his e -mail to clubs on Friday afternoon, Masters continued to play down the seriousness of the situation.
Everything would be good, he said, because we now have the new rules. What he did not mention was that the same panel that has ruled so emphatically to the advantage of the city would soon express the legality of those new rules.
There was also no question of the legal costs, in which City now expects he would look for the £ 10 million they have spent and the top flight that was set to increase the estimated £ 10 million they could have claimed if they had been successful .
There was also no mention that even if the panel gives the new rules the green light, the potential remains for clubs that saw deals under the forbidden system to request compensation.
All eyes are now on the panel and on the judgment of the Premier League attempt to hammer City for 115 alleged infringements of his financial regulations that will be due in the coming weeks.
If that results in further shame for the Premier League and his Chief Executive, it can be an idea to call it a duck – under the supervision of one of the sitting variety.
Comments