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

Vic said:
Even if that were so, the PL has to get a majority vote for new Rules. (Do they need 14 votes?)

I imagine a backroom conversation, whereby City say they will support new rules that suit them - in exchange for not seeking compensation for the damage caused to City by the PL's application of unlawful rules.
Click to expand...
You would expect some sort of horse trading to be going on. The PL now need to somehow keep City onside to prevent further costs and claims as you state. That said I can't see how this will be at all easy with several parties with different vested interests round the table. How Masters and Co think this will be sorted in under 10 days is bizarre.
 
slbsn said:
If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the claim would consider the reasons for the loss (was it purely the unlawful rules causing the rejection for example) and, if causation was proved, then there would be an assessment of loss .

So, guessing, lets say the deal was £90m for 24/25 rising 8% pa for 10 years. And lets say, the PL said no, the FMV is £80m rising 5% for 10 years. City maybe decided that in 24/25 they would take the £80m and argue about the rest. This means if approved for the next 9 years during 24/25 on the original basis, City's maximum loss is £10m plus interest.

Ultimately, EAG are hardly likely to reject the possibility of a lower priced commercial deal because City have been capped out by the PL FMV calc.
Click to expand...

Cheers, thanks for taking the time, makes sense.
 
west didsblue said:
There are also two other clauses that say they 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;”

The “and for no other reason” statement must be legalese because it gives two other reasons.
Click to expand...
I think it makes sense if you understand it as:

“(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 (the only reason they are in breach of the Act);
(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 (the only reason they are in breach of the Act);
(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 (the only reason they are procedurally unfair);”
 
slbsn said:
If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the claim would consider the reasons for the loss (was it purely the unlawful rules causing the rejection for example) and, if causation was proved, then there would be an assessment of loss .

So, guessing, lets say the deal was £90m for 24/25 rising 8% pa for 10 years. And lets say, the PL said no, the FMV is £80m rising 5% for 10 years. City maybe decided that in 24/25 they would take the £80m and argue about the rest. This means if approved for the next 9 years during 24/25 on the original basis, City's maximum loss is £10m plus interest.

Ultimately, EAG are hardly likely to reject the possibility of a lower priced commercial deal because City have been capped out by the PL FMV calc.
Click to expand...

While you are here, can I ask you this? What legal status does the PL have to require a third party sponsor to change a valid contract with a PL club? Especially one overseas? I never understood that.

And what happens if Etihad signed at a lower amount as required by the PL, and the higher amount is later approved but Etihad refuse to increase again?

Sorry. Lots of questions, as always.
 
kp220 said:
mine are 55 + 57 ...... you can't ever stop worrying !!
Click to expand...
Just for "light" relief, I remember an old cartoon with a very old couple at the grave of their son who died aged 70, with the father saying "I tellt tha we'd nivver rear the lad".
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
You would expect some sort of horse trading to be going on. The PL now need to somehow keep City onside to prevent further costs and claims as you state. That said I can't see how this will be at all easy with several parties with different vested interests round the table. How Masters and Co think this will be sorted in under 10 days is bizarre.
Click to expand...
City’s letter is clearly designed to encourage clubs not to vote in favour of any hastily cobbled together new rules. If the PL try and fail to get 14 votes, they are truly in the shit.
 
johnny crossan said:
"The Tribunal has determined both that the APT rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice."
Click to expand...

I think it’s a fine line, but that’s different. That says the rules resulted in clubs being treated differently but I think the panels ruling mentioned they found no bias or discrimination in the PL’s actions (I think).
 
hello said:
tbf everyone knows they were actually drawn up on a napkin at the famous restaurant meeting of red shite owners as opposed to a fag packet, but the rest is spot on although maybe just maybe this time when the premier leagues legal counsel advises them it might not be lawful the premier league might actually listen?
Click to expand...
You know what gave it away they blamed it on Benson and Hedges ;)
 
KS55 said:
City’s letter is clearly designed to encourage clubs not to vote in favour of any hastily cobbled together new rules. If the PL try and fail to get 14 votes, they are truly in the shit.
Click to expand...
Yes, that plus the threat 'if you do it any way, we're still lawyered up and will do this again'. Awkward.
 
KS55 said:
City’s letter is clearly designed to encourage clubs not to vote in favour of any hastily cobbled together new rules. If the PL try and fail to get 14 votes, they are truly in the shit.
Click to expand...
But can we get 7 votes? 1 City 2 Newcastle 3 Chelsea 4 Everton 5 Forest. Can't think of any others tbh.
 
St.Pauli support said:
If that's the case, wouldn't it be quite smart to have someone on there who currently doesn't represent City and takes a factual and unbiased stance with a remarkable expertise? Maybe understatement and calmness is the way that serves us well trying to convince people that maybe the picture painted by media is not quite as perfect as many have hoped to be...
Click to expand...
I'm not saying Stefan shouldn't go on there, on the whole he does a good job, the station is preaching to the converted and I'll repeat, they don't like City.
 
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