City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

slbsn said:
I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.
Click to expand...
So how do you think this plays out from here? PL seem to think they’ll have replacements APT rules in place in days, got to be questionable at least?
 
@slbsn

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Manchester City have accused the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.
City have written to top-flight clubs criticising the league's summary of the case verdict, saying it contains "several inaccuracies".
The letter to the 19 clubs and the league, seen by the BBC, was sent by City’s general counsel Simon Cliff on Monday.
City, who are owned by the Abu Dhabi-backed City Football Group, had some complaints upheld, with two aspects of the associated party transaction (APT) rules deemed unlawful by a tribunal.
They have claimed their legal action had "succeeded".
However, the Premier League also welcomed the tribunal's findings, saying it rejected the majority of Manchester City's challenges and "endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system".
APTs are aimed at sponsorship deals with companies linked to clubs' owners, ensuring they are of fair market value.

What did the letter say?​

In the letter, Cliff offered "clarifications" to "assist member clubs with their understanding" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.
"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies," Cliff claims.
"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.
"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT Rules, nor does it state that the APT Rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls."
The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was “not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements.
"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.
"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."
The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.
The tribunal - in a 175-page document - ruled that low-interest shareholder loans from owners to their clubs should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules, and that some amendments to toughen up the rules in February by should not be retained.
However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".
He added: "We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.
"Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator."

What has been the response?​

City are not commenting on the letter.
The Premier League has also declined to comment, but a senior source has told BBC Sport that it rejects any view that its summary of the ruling was misleading or inaccurate.
A consultation with the clubs is now under way. They are meeting next Thursday to discuss the fallout, but there will be no vote at that stage.
This case is not directly related to the Premier League disciplinary commission, which will hear 115 charges against City for allegedly breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009. City deny wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
 
slbsn said:
I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.
Click to expand...
It depends who you mean by the PL. Perhaps Masters is deluded enough to think he has won but I doubt if many Club Directors ( including his pals) will agree.
 
HelloCity said:
@slbsn

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

From City’s letter…
The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was “not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements.
"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law.
 
TheThirdDeano said:
Quick reminder as the morning draws to a close that you do not hate journalists or print media enough.
You think you do, but you don’t.
Click to expand...

Bluearmy said:
So how do you think this plays out from here? PL seem to think they’ll have replacements APT rules in place in days, got to be questionable at least?
Click to expand...
I'm counting !!
 
slbsn said:
I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.
Click to expand...

I'm making some assumptions here, but from what I gather the delay in releasing the results was down to the PL side?

I think that this will have been due to them desperately trying to create a statement that made them look good (well, less bad!). I expect they were trying to word things pretty carefully.

I feel like if the PL genuinely felt they'd won, they'd have managed to get their statement out a lot quicker then they did. It would have been a much more straightforward job.

That's all just feels though, you're the guy who knows legal.
 
Bez said:
I'm glad Stefan is out there offering a relatively balanced view of what are very complex legal and political issues. Imagine a situation where Talksport got a biased Liverpool fan on instead. Stefan is one of only a few people out there offering balance and objectivity via the media.

Remember, Khaldoon says he wants to deal in facts. That is exactly what Stefan does.

It must be a difficult gig going on TS when Simon Jordan could jump in any second to derail your flow of argument with his usual show boating.

Stefan is being invited on as an FFP expert. That's what he's doing.
Click to expand...
This.
 
paulchapo said:
Mate I have no sympathy for your club, none whatsoever. They, along with the other usual suspects, have tried to put our club out of business and smear every single achievement we have had since the takeover.

As a fan of that club however I do have some sympathy for you, even your more horrible gobby fans. As fans we are powerless what goes on behind the scenes. It's not the fans fault.
Click to expand...
Fuck the tarquins. I hope rvery single prick is devastated. Cunts the fucking lot of them.
 
Stefan becoming full pundit, no fans seem to like there own.

For me we won on what we won, but it was never a huge case and nor did we want it to be.

Stefan is bang on the money, as he tends to be when he says stuff we like.

Do City want FMV gone is an interesting conversation, as we might but might not?

Do we want it to be more flexible and far less red tape (definitely), do we want it easy/ quick go do deals (yes). These are our wins.

City fans in this thread like detail, take that as 5% of TS audience and the rest believing we wanting to challenge these so that Etihad could sponsor us for a billion pounds a year. That would not be good for us long term (IMO). Do we want to be able to be sponsored for an amount reflective as our position as 1 of if not the best team in the world, 4 in a row, treble winners. Without PL and the red cartel moaning no history, empty seats etc. To now have PL having to show us why that is not acceptable as opposed to us justifying it makes a significant difference.

Plus, we have changed the landscape of let’s do this, that to can we do this, our voice will now be heard a lot more.

So I agree not much has changed and certainly to the outside world, but inside the circle I think City will be very happy.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It was just a negotiation tactic. We have got everything we wanted from the case. Before February this year City have always supported financial regulation. Khaldoon has repeatedly stressed that all we have ever wanted is fair treatment. The PL sabotaged two of our sponsor deals and would not even allow us to discuss how they arrived at their decision. Independent Judges have now ruled this was illegal and unfair. The word I would use is corruption. It was a corrupt decision. It needs to be called out for what it is.
Click to expand...

Thread is moving fast, but for context my post was offering an explanation as to why Stefan has taken the position he has and not reflective of my own opinion. The intention of the club is pure guesswork really. The timing gives a strong indication that we saw the revised rules as a step too far and were commercially impacted so took legal action. The fact we won, and our proposed sponsorship deals will have to be re-assessed is a win. And that, for me, was our main aim. But the case itself looked at the full rulebook and on the face of it the club tried to challenge a lot more than those rules, and were unsuccessful.

As you say, we want fair rules that enable clubs to grow commercially, within UK competition law. We've got that. So it's a win. The PL have to re-write their rules around those elements, and get the majority of PL clubs to agree and vote for them. Whilst the principle of the APT rules survive, those that stifled us will have to change. I can't see how you'd review that as anything but a City win. But I can appreciate Stefan's position that it's a bit more nuanced than win and lose.
 
Bez said:
I'm glad Stefan is out there offering a relatively balanced view of what are very complex legal and political issues. Imagine a situation where Talksport got a biased Liverpool fan on instead. Stefan is one of only a few people out there offering balance and objectivity via the media.

Remember, Khaldoon says he wants to deal in facts. That is exactly what Stefan does.

It must be a difficult gig going on TS when Simon Jordan could jump in any second to derail your flow of argument with his usual show boating.

Stefan is being invited on as an FFP expert. That's what he's doing.
Click to expand...

From Manchester City’s legal council.

The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was “not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements.
"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law.
Click to expand...

Cc @Silva2021
 
slbsn said:
I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.
Click to expand...
It can be plainly seen from the carefully crafted and worded press release that the PL don’t believe they have won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top