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

Damocles said:
Yes, if a person talking about the impacts of a legal document was legally trained then his opinions on the legal document would hold more weight.

Cliff is part of the game. His response is part of a strategy formulated by City to benefit City.

It's incredibly weird how the same people who understand that other clubs executives and teams say things that may be a very liberal interpretation of events but they believe that nobody at City could possibly do the same.
Click to expand...
So GDM & Samuel & Cliff are in agreement the judgement is a complete vindication of City's case and an indisputable seismic victory which forces the PL to completely rewrite its sponsorship rules. Let me refresh your memory what was written and then explain where they got it wrong and why Stefan is entitled to call it 'absolute nonsense'.

"Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unfair, unfair, unreasonable, unreasonable. The seven conclusions of the arbitration panel governing Manchester City’s case against the Premier League make for sobering reading. Yet, even sober, the hangover is going to last a very long time.

It is not just Associated Party Transaction (APT) rulings that must now be revisited — this decision made them obsolete and unusable overnight. The whole concept of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) is also in the bin, now that shareholder loans, too, are to be judged related-party deals.

That is City’s big win, in many ways their payback. Their accusation was that the league and its members acted like a cartel by introducing rules specifically intended to curb the potential of a minority of clubs. They pointed out that many clubs benefited from interest-free shareholder loans. If that wasn’t a related-party transaction, they argued, what was? And because the arbitration was carried out by serious people, who listen to reason and logic, they agreed."
 
Vic said:
But then wouldn't it have said, "Rule number X is unlawful"? No matter whether it's an easy fix or not, as it stands the Rules are unlawful (so City say they are all null and void until the unfair bits are fixed). That's my understanding / best guess.
Click to expand...

Could be.

As I said before, though, I think there have been other things going on that we don't know about. Correspondence between club and PL on how to proceed, for example, according to Cliff; maybe some pressure from red shirts leading to the PL statement; maybe some anger at a process abandoned from the club's side leading to Cliff's letter ....?

I suppose all will become clear eventually.
 
blueste41 said:
One thing that has occurred to me is why is this case been commented on by football journalists and reported on sports pages? It has nothing to do with football! It should be reported by legal correspondents on business pages.
Click to expand...
You make a very good point and whilst I agree with you, we are both probably wrong!
 
blueinsa said:
I’m certainly no expert but it’s clear we have won.

What’s concerning though is the mad rush yet again from the red cartel and PL to get new rules over the line within 10 days which is clearly going to be aimed at us yet again.

Pleased to hear we have briefed the media we are onto this and have written to everyone explaining that further legal action will follow.
Click to expand...
Says a lot about it all when they want the rules drafted more quickly than that shit-show of a statement they put out.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's what I thought. Not sure how that tallies with the requirement to make decisions quickly, though, bearing in mind the new rules may take a while....
Click to expand...

Also, if by the old rules shareholder loans didn't have to be included and given that these rules will not be backdated, surely that means that the PL have to now wave those deals through?
 
I've just listened to Stefan on Talksport today and went back to what he said back in June and I found him pretty informative. He kind of forecast the decision, APT rules are acceptable, but the amendments may be challengeable. We told the premier league at the time the new rules will be unlawful and we would take legal action, and in my view we did succeed in that. We will have to see how the premier league responds. I doubt it's going to be a quick update next week and it's all fixed as the league stated yesterday.
 
Have we won yet? Personally, I won't be happy until the EPL are forced to release a statement saying that everyone working at the PL is ex officio a ****. And that Master's is a ****'s ****. On headed note paper.
 
slbsn said:
Just not true. Here is what I actually said and I stand by every word of it.


And just checking, have you read the 175 pages?
Click to expand...

Could spend forever trying to dig up your talksport segment so put a simple search on your name and here's you quoted in the Daily Mail.
If you're misquoted you best get your legal hat on,if not you're beginning to look rather stupid over this.Screenshot_20241008-143436.png
 
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