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

gordondaviesmoustache said:
He always is.
Click to expand...
i think there's one thing that ex ante and ex post can agree on
and that's ex machina


giphy.webp
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
Don't the PL now have to prove sponsorships are not FMV, and not the club's to argue they are?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it now has to be evidently above fmv, not just above fmv and the evidence has to be more cogent (would be over fmv instead of could be) and the normal market conditions requirement has been removed. Pretty sure it will be OK.
 
Damanino said:
I am afraid this football regulator will be a big scam, I cannot see any UK government Labour or Tory put together a great regulatory body to regulate football. If anything our rivals be in the ear of the person in charge just as they are with Masters. Starmer already getting sweet gifts from Arsenal due to this.
Click to expand...
Forget that mate, just wait for the conspiracies to go into overdrive if/as/when Starmer visits or meets Sheiky baby or Koolhand Khaldoon before the verdict is released

The fall out would be off the scale. I so hope it happens, just for my own personal amusement :)
 
blueste41 said:
Your view differs from City's then. The club don't object to the PL determining FMV what they object to is not being allowed access to the benchmarking data they use to determine said FMV.
Click to expand...

Amongst other things, including the switch on burden of proof and the removal of wording that substantially weakened the margin for error in the PL's calculations. Points that were accepted by the panel and were one of the reasons the new rules were declared unlawful. Big "win" imho.
 
Dribble said:
My point is that IIRC, PIF aren't the sole owners of Newcastle, albeit they are the majority owners.

Why is a private venture capital consortium containing PIF OK, but not PIF itself being a part of a consortium buying a club?

The lines are extremely blurred in this respect.
Click to expand...

You are right. There is absolutely no reason why PIF shouldn't own a football club other than them being better connected with more money than anyone else. Exactly the same way there is nothing wrong with a member of the AD royal family owning a football club other than him being better connected with more money than almost anyone else. Other clubs need to suck it up.

There are perfectly legal ways to avoid financial "abuse" without resorting to discriminatory and illegal measures.
 
meltonblue said:
I was saying no goer to the posters viewpoint rather than the judgement. In terms of the judgement though, they found that the PL were not wrong in their FMV assessment. They set aside the decisions due to the lack of availability from us to the data used to justify it. Given that data was assessed for them to come to the judgment on the FMV decision, I’m not sure how we’ll be able to now argue them and they then be allowed.

The more likely outcome is if they are to be allowed, it’s due to them having to negate all the rules, as per the email sent last night by the club. Whether that’ll happen, we’ve just got to wait and see.
Click to expand...

The rules of the fmv assessment are going to have to be changed for the "pricing" issues found unlawful by the tribunal. So the burden of proof will now be on the PL and with a clearly apparent ("evident") margin of error. Pretty sure those change the whole ball game.
 
meltonblue said:
Yes, mentioned that earlier, they’re going to get in a mess with what they do retrospectively. Highly doubt they’ll apply the loan interests, which is why I think this’ll end up back in tribunal again at some point.
Click to expand...

If they don't it seems to me they will get in trouble with clubs who have suffered a financial loss from the unlawful rules since 2021 by, for example, not giving points deductions (and affecting table positions) for resulting FFP breaches.

Tangled webs and all that.
 
Last edited:
So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?
 
halfcenturyup said:
So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
It does and I hope you’re right!
 
halfcenturyup said:
So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
Does anyone know how many deals were reduced in value under the rules, and for which clubs (I can guess which won't be in the list)?

If I was a sponsor, I would probably be quite happy at paying less, so I can't see any deal that was reduced reverting to the original number. So depending on how many such deals there were the PL could be seeing some big demands for compensation.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

Does that mean it’s open for anyone to push through? Would we go to this trouble to hand an advantage to others?
 
cheekybids said:
Does that mean it’s open for anyone to push through? Would we go to this trouble to hand an advantage to others?
Click to expand...

If the rules are indeed nul and void since 2021, then I guess yes, but I suspect City would get more advantage out of Etihad alone than any other club would get from any sponsorships, with the possible exception of Newcastle.

So maybe this is actually more serious for the PL than a few quick changes to a few rules.

I still think there is more going on here than any of us realise and the views from a few (clearly briefed) journalists are probably the best indication of City's position.
 
halfcenturyup said:
If the rules are indeed nul and void since 2021, then I guess yes, but I suspect City would get more advantage out of Etihad alone than any other club would get from any sponsorships, with the possible exception of Newcastle.

So maybe this is actually more serious for the PL than a few quick changes to a few rules.

I still think there is more going on here than any of us realise and the views from a few (clearly briefed) journalists are probably the best indication of City's position.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a secondary advantage but not the main part. I think it’s absolutely highlighting that they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery ahead of this trial. Not only will they rush through unlawful rules at the behest of the chosen few, they’ll do it again & again. They aren’t acting independently for the benefit of the league.
 
Cheer Up Peter Reid said:
Does anyone know how many deals were reduced in value under the rules, and for which clubs (I can guess which won't be in the list)?

If I was a sponsor, I would probably be quite happy at paying less, so I can't see any deal that was reduced reverting to the original number. So depending on how many such deals there were the PL could be seeing some big demands for compensation.
Click to expand...

Iirc, the panel said 52 sponsorship deals had been reviewed under the APT rules, with 41 of them cleared (presumably favourably) within the appropriate time. So that leaves up to 11 that were amended, I guess.

I still find it amazing that the PL can insist a valid contract between two parties has to be changed because .... well, just because they say so. I can understand why the PL would want that but there must surely be huge problems around that with the impact on directors' legal responsibility to shareholders, not to mention jurisdiction (how can the PL force a company not subject to the PL rules to do anything? Especially in a foreign country. They can't even force them to provide information to an investigation).

I said earlier, in some way I hope Etihad reduced their sponsorship by say 10 million a year and then refuse to increase it again and the club sues the PL for that amount for each of the next ten years. 100 million would be nice.
 
cheekybids said:
I think it’s a secondary advantage but not the main part. I think it’s absolutely highlighting that they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery ahead of this trial. Not only will they rush through unlawful rules at the behest of the chosen few, they’ll do it again & again. They aren’t acting independently for the benefit of the league.
Click to expand...

You may be right.

But the aggressive response from Cliff (or from the legal team through Cliff) is so unlike City it makes me think there is more to it all. Maybe a strategy of get one unlawful judgment, have all the APT rules voided, get the outstanding cases cleared and then get new, more acceptable, APT rules. The PL knows all this and started working with the club on it, but have tried to bluff their way out of it under pressure from the reds, and City are keeping them on the tribunal hook.

May all be bullshit, but came to me last night and ties up one or two loose ends. In my mind, at least :D
 
Last edited:
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