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

[Colin Bells Boots]

I am sorry but I don't see how in anyway this can be seen as a win for the PL.

The PL bring in APR rules.

City challenge them and the panel finds that the way the PL have implemented them to be illegal.

That's it end of! the word Illegal should end any discussion.

They now have to rewrite the rules. Which will have major implications for several clubs.

How is that in anyway a PL win?

It's not!

They are trying to cover their arses after receiving a seriously damaging loss on the very aspects that City were challenging.

Apart from their paid shills in the media and the terminally ignorant on social media, the redshirt cabal and their lap dog Masters has been exposed and their control severely diminished.

City 10 - PL Cabal 1 ( in off the ref )

 

[Ric]

I'd argue that it was one 'relatively minor detail' given the panel's summary. Yes, the overriding principal that the concept APT rules were not intrinsically unlawful was upheld (and I can't work out if we tried to claim that) but they'll have to change the rules as they stand, as you said.

We got two disputed sponsorships reinstated at levels that were presumably closer to our valuation, which is probably a large part of why we brought this action.

Also, while our challenges were dismissed on a number of points, many of those were around those two sponsorship deals. So the PL 'won' on those points but it was a pyrrhic victory as we won the 'war' with the sponsorships reinstated.

I may have this wrong, but I didn't think the disputed sponsorships had been reinstated as such, just that the previous decisions regarding them had been set aside as procedurally unfair. They still need to be approved I think.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Or he could just accept he's someone who called it wrong initially but hasn't the cojones to accept that and move on.

He said she said. It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t totally right or wrong. Everyone asks him to guess so he puts forward an opinion and you nail him for it? Give it a rest.

 

[schfc6]

Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.

Fully agree. If he goes on all happy clapper. His personal and professional credibility goes out the window.
Then we are back to same one sided narrative.

 

[blueste41]

I'd argue that it was one 'relatively minor detail' given the panel's summary. Yes, the overriding principal that the concept APT rules were not intrinsically unlawful was upheld (and I can't work out if we tried to claim that) but they'll have to change the rules as they stand, as you said.

We got two disputed sponsorships reinstated at levels that were presumably closer to our valuation, which is probably a large part of why we brought this action.

Also, while our challenges were dismissed on a number of points, many of those were around those two sponsorship deals. So the PL 'won' on those points but it was a pyrrhic victory as we won the 'war' with the sponsorships reinstated.

Does "set aside" (the quote on the 2 sponsorship deals in the judgement) mean re-instated or that the previous rulings should be set aside and they are reassessed?

 

[blueinsa]

I was just about to comment similar to @Ric .

Stefan has to use the judgement to make a professional opinion. From the publicly available information it would be quite easy to build a narrative of a win for either side, it does depend on the lens and which points you deem more important. If you look around, many lawyers have been cautious to lean either way.

City will say 'we won the most important arguments which now allow us to put sponsorships through, see FMV judgements and seek compensation'.

The PL will say 'we managed to defend the majority of the legal arguments, clubs will still need APT approval prior to the deal taking place etc...'.

This City letter sent out isn't public, so impossible for Stefan to add that to the equation, especially when it was barely known about when he jumped on TS this morning. He has to use the facts available, his reputation depends on it.

For example, the Chelsea situation, he wasn't to know that the PL's rules were so poorly drafted that they were essentially allowed to sell a hotel to themselves. (If you read this Stefan, I'm aware that the process was more complex than that and perplexing that it took them so long to ratify the deal).

He technically did say on TS a score draw, maybe slightly in City's favour.

Personally I'd lean towards City getting the more favourable decision as they've managed to show the PL acting improper which may help us in the short and long term. I think we got the key areas ruled for us which is what we wanted, the rest may have been a smokescreen to keep the PL busy. However, I can fully understand somebody saying it wasn't a perfect judgement for either party as we don't know that for sure.

City going strong with the letter suggests they believe the PL are well out of line but again they have more information than us. It is promising that the club have reacted this way.

Problem with media appearances, no doubt paid and I’m not slamming the guy or anyone else for that btw, is that they invite along editorial lines and you are expected to go with the flow so to speak.

I’m in complete disagreement with his or any other assessment this is a score draw or a narrow victory for us that changes little and whilst Talksport might want to trot that line and have guests say similar, it doesn’t make it true.

City have briefed this morning where they stand. Anyone not listening is a fool imo.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Who won? I have been asked at least 6 times today. Purely because the Premier League played it down as a small matter of incorrect rules that can easily be rectified.
My answer was make your own mind up. City can claim compensation for millions. The Premier League have to change their rules as they have been declared illegal. Clubs have to pay interest on loans designed to give them a competitive advantage aka cheating. I KNOW who won!

It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.

Only one party was found to have enacted unlawfully, has to rewrite its rule book possibly pay compensation.

That party isn't City.

 

[blueste41]

I may have this wrong, but I didn't think the disputed sponsorships had been reinstated as such, just that the previous decisions regarding them had been set aside as procedurally unfair. They still need to be approved I think.

Thank you, that's what I thought but then suddenly doubted myself after seeing Prestwich Blue's post.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.

Agree with this. Stefan is not an oracle, nobody is, or can be when dealing with the Prem and their continual refreshing of their creaking law book. Don’t force him off the forum with criticism. For sure point out where you disagree but I’ve listened twice to the TS interview and personally think it’s balanced and fair. If Stefan got his predictions wrong in places or is suggesting that it’s not a complete win that’s fine. He’s probably right.

There’s a reason why Prem Lge chairfolk /owners introduced the ‘no personal liability’ clause back in Feb. Even then they were worried about the veracity of the rules.

One of the biggest wins I see is that we have stood our ground and given the redshirt influencers a bloody nose. It’s all about cash to the clubs. They will think twice before they look to kneecap us again coz pretending that things like Competition Laws don’t matter in a their cosy private club has been called out.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Or he could just accept he's someone who called it wrong initially but hasn't the cojones to accept that and move on.

This is REALLY important to you isn't it.

Truth be told, in the years leading up to this point slbns input has been invaluable. Much more than others. People get things wrong, maybe you have here. Just move on though.

 

[Vic]

This is saying one relatively minor detail of the rules is unlawful. It is important but not a major problem for the PL. This is not City's major win. The major win is ripping up the 2024 amendments. The major loss is probably on the matter of the test of transactions being before approval rather than after. I see it like a tree - we have won the right to chop off some branches but not to fell the tree. The PL will need to prune the tree but not replant it.

Is it? How do City claim the judgement mean the Rules are null and void if "the Rules are unlawful" just means the individual Rules on which the Panel said City succeeded. The phraseology "for no other reason" doesn't on the face of it seem to qualify the ruling that the Rules (as a whole) are unlawful.

(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason;
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason

 

[SSL2]

What did I call wrong?

For starters, you reposted this tweet. So I presume at the time when you reposted, you were in agreement with Tariq?

I've have respected/agreed with you on many points for years now, but in this particular case, I find your stance very odd indeed. Your unwillingness to back down from your viewpoint that city haven't gained any significant victory in this hearing, is just plain bizarre.

 

[slbsn]

I struggle to see how you have reached that conclusion. That's not suggesting you are wrong just that my thoughts are quite different. Both sides can of course claim a win, and for the PL they have had confirmation that the APT rules are sound in principle.

But whilst City took them to court to fell the tree, using your analogy, there were certain branches that weighed heavy and were the true target. And those branches have been cut. In doing so, the PL are left with a tree that might not survive.

Remember that the PL had legal advice on the rules, then amended them without (or ignoring) that advice. Certain rules voted through have been found to be unlawful. Those rules were ones that caused City to lose out on lucrative new sponsorship. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than some gentle pruning to get a lawful version of the rules voted through. The amendments were clearly made to appease clubs who saw them as enabling City to potentially grow revenue. Removal of certain words was paramount to getting them voted through. To think the PL simply re-draft and then get sign off is naive. They either manage that, and City are likely to then secure new sponsorships, or they again introduce a set of unlawful rules. The emails City have issued to all clubs suggests the latter isn't an option they have.

Stepping back, it is who you perceive to be the bad guy. The PL is essentially doing what it is under pressure to do. Certain clubs have clearly forced through these rules. The PL possibly doesn't have an issue with a lawful version, but many clubs will. Between them, they're in a spot of bother.

First of all we are a key member of this PL so the City's desire for change is to be considered against that backdrop. Second, the "enemies" in the room haven't changed - they will be the parties voting on new rules. Third it is clear the tree is standing on PSR, FMV and APT (of some sort). There is simply no basis to think the clubs will agree no regulation and nor would we want that. We are at the top table.

So we are fighting around the edges by definition and assisted by law which is inherently uncertain on complex and evolving areas of sport and competition law and the interaction. Even if the PL no longer existed, do you really think the Super League teams would not largely replicate the UEFA and or the PL regime on financial restrictions? Of course they would. City most likely want a wholesale change of the leadership of the PL - that is understandable given the allegations made against them but we are still part of this family and all successes in cases like this have to be contextualised in the sense that we need the PL to succeed for our own success.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I'd argue that it was one 'relatively minor detail' given the panel's summary. Yes, the overriding principal that the concept APT rules were not intrinsically unlawful was upheld (and I can't work out if we tried to claim that) but they'll have to change the rules as they stand, as you said.

We got two disputed sponsorships reinstated at levels that were presumably closer to our valuation, which is probably a large part of why we brought this action.

Also, while our challenges were dismissed on a number of points, many of those were around those two sponsorship deals. So the PL 'won' on those points but it was a pyrrhic victory as we won the 'war' with the sponsorships reinstated.

I’m not sure we did. I took the ruling to mean City could try again after the unlawful elements were corrected?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Sure but he also said we (City) are attempting to become the new cartel, are you equally cool with this?

Yes it’d be sweet as fuck if we became the cartel ;)

 

[slbsn]

For starters, you reposted this tweet. So I presume at the time when you reposted, you were in agreement with Tariq?

I've have respected/agreed with you on many points for years now, but in this particular case, I find your stance very odd indeed. Your unwillingness to back down from your viewpoint that city haven't gained any significant victory in this hearing, is just plain bizarre.

No I retweeted it as an important counter balance to the other briefing.

I am not backing down from my position because....

get this

I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT HAVING READ THE DECISION.

 

[nmc]

I think there's an element of reputation management for Stefan. He wrote off City's chance of winning anything with this challenge so he's naturally playing down our success.

Stefan and Richard Masters following the same agenda then?

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Is that Ricos grandad ?

 

[give it to gordon]

I thought City were never against ATP as a concept. The only thing City wanted was the the rules within ATP to be legal.

Some clubs want illegal rules

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

Fully agree. If he goes on all happy clapper. His personal and professional credibility goes out the window.
Then we are back to same one sided narrative.

This is definitely true... But there is a concern (for us, not so much him as I presume they make it worth his while) that they are using him to say 'look even a City "insider" agrees with us!' to strengthen their attempts to do harm to Man City. That's where the frustration comes from. They have people lining up to eviscerate us, and the only person attempting to be 'fair and reasonable' is the one person they allow on from our side.

When Simon Jordan is doing a better job representing City fans' feelings, something has gone awry. City grabbed the upper hand yesterday, there's no need for us to be magnanimous, because they wouldn't have been magnanimous if they'd been more successful. But I get that means they might not have him on at all.

It's like the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. When the Republicans are in power they say fuck the Democrats, when the Democrats are in power they say we 'need to reach across the aisle'. It's why one side gets things done and the other side gets bogged down in diplomacy.