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

gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...
He's worked with people now employed by Slaughter & May and also Bird and Bird, both of whom work for the PL.
 
Vic said:
I can't be bothered going back to the article. But does it say "The Tribunal said that both the original rules and the amended rules are unlawful"? (Or anything that clear?)
Click to expand...
I did go back. This bit of the article is simply wrong:

"Secondly, it found that a number of changes made to the APT rules in February were in breach of competition law. These changes were highly technical. In essence, amendments in the rules would make it more difficult for a club to meet the fair market value test. However, they only related to the APT rules since January, rather than since the original rules introduction in 2021. The tribunal found these changes constituted a breach of competition law. Man City’s other competition law challenges failed."

The Tribunal found that the original rules were also unlawful. (And somehow the article misses out the word "unlawful".)

Aa a "law report" it's pathetic.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...
Needs a double, if not treble, like. Slam dunk.
 
BobbyBoy said:
Does that disqualify a source?
Click to expand...
Neither are reputable, so yes.

Neither of them could be expected to comment or give insight in a way that was reliable or objective. Both have track records which display a clear tendency to promote certain interests in a way that would render their reliability as a source to be worthless.

Plus they are both cunts.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...

Only did 3 years at a sports law firm and instead now is a well connected legal journalist?

You're right, let's believe Martin Samuel instead whose qualifications seem to be "says what I prefer to hear".



This guy is Associate Professor at LSE Law School and Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law. He says essentially the same as Stefan and The Lawyer.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
The very idea that a benchmarking process can look accurately into the value proposition of sponsorships to global corporations (whose evolving business models & future plans they cannot understand) is simply laughable imo. It’s like nailing smoke to a wall. Overlay Regional/Geopolitical realities onto the global growth of the EPL and many corporations will want to associate themselves with the dynamic and mega-rich Gulf States. The “evidently” approach would at least mitigate against some of the crudeness inherent in benchmarking. How can Masters and his merry band at PL HQ manage the complexity of these issues - at least Government through Regulation may have a chance of doing so. The bigger picture is there may be a few hiccups along the road but no way are City going to lose here, nor in the ongoing 115/129/130 charges. Buckle up blues.
 
After having the wind taken out of their sails a little with the verdict, our lovely friends in the media have regrouped today and continued with their ant City rhetoric. The best I've seen so far is we are trying to bully the other clubs lol!

Now we have been forced to take the gloves off let's start with the premier league as a starter. Then have the red cartel and their lackeys as a main course. Finally finish off with a sumptuous desert of the scumbag media and every little independent mouthpiece like Goldbridge and the rest.
 
Palerider said:
That said, I do have a very little bit of sympathy for the Premier League's position. They are trying to treat football as a sport when, certainly in England, it's become apparent that football is about money and therefore businesses.
Click to expand...

I don't.

The problem isn't that they are treating football as a sport. The problem is that they are trying to micro-manage it on an ad-hoc basis to preserve an artificial and elusive illusion of fair competition (meaning no-one can out-compete the usual suspects). Their rules are ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated, time-consuming and expensive. They need to step back, simplify the financial rules as much as they can, and take simple decisions in the interest of the sport as a whole. They need a CEO with balls and at least a tiny amount of competence.

It's the equivalent of the mess the authorities are making of the game with VAR, offside, handball and the rest. Just keep it simple, for Christ's sake.
 
Tim of the Oak said:
I do like Stefan’s contributions on Talkshite. We were routinely slaughtered about FFP/FSR before them.

I haven’t seen this week’s TS recordings. I think it comes back to what GDM said many pages back. To oversimplify, if we wanted our pending sponsorships to be treated lawfully and more reasonably, we’ve won. If we wanted to bring down the APT system, then that will need further clarification from the judges. Most of us didn’t think we were going for a knock out to begin with.
Click to expand...
Yep. From what I can gather, City were intent on tackling the February 24 amendment to the APT rules first and foremost and we won on that so the Premier League can go and get fucked.
 
Damocles said:
Only did 3 years at a sports law firm and instead now is a well connected legal journalist?

You're right, let's believe Martin Samuel instead whose qualifications seem to be "says what I prefer to hear".



This guy is Associate Professor at LSE Law School and Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law. He says essentially the same as Stefan and The Lawyer.
Click to expand...

You were commenting on his ability to analyse the law, not his abilities as a journalist, at which he appears to be decent.
 
BobbyBoy said:
Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?
Click to expand...
Because we know what their end-game is. They might be 'good' for him but they're using him as a mouthpiece for their anti-City agenda.
 
ancoats said:
But the MP in control will also be a factor if the government gets involved, How can you truth the government when Billions of pounds are involved, Money is the root of all evil and it will make him or her big money and then they will get out as quickly possible, Elections will be held every 2 seasons and a new head selected and the shit will fall on somebody else's shoulders
Click to expand...
I'd imagine the MP involved won't have an executive role within IREF, but more of an oversight role.
 
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