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

[Blue Llama]

Do they have a choice, by law they now have to be included going forward surely?

No, it wasn't ruled illegal to not include loans without interest just discriminatory

 

[eastmanc]

Tell me about it. I have sons aged 32, 30 and 28 and another daughter 26. Busy, busy.

Fucking hell you have seven bread snappers

 

[KS55]

Do they have a choice, by law they now have to be included going forward surely?

Not if all APT rules are scrapped. The decision was it was not lawful to exclude them while including other associated transactions. Logically, if all APT rules are scrapped there is no problem.

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

No, it wasn't ruled illegal to not include loans without interest just discriminatory

That's not right. Excluding shareholder loans from the scope was one of the reasons it was ruled unlawful.

 

[spacecadet]

Fucking hell you have seven bread snappers

Randy sod : - )

 

[KS55]

Meanwhile, any football going on?

 

[CC1]

But can we get 7 votes? 1 City 2 Newcastle 3 Chelsea 4 Everton 5 Forest. Can't think of any others tbh.

Whatever they propose - they have still got to deal with the current irregularities. So they HAVE to pass changes to the rules that affected the “gulf” states. If the clubs with loans don’t have to pay interest then APTs are null & void. If they are not backdated, then all APTs prior to the new rules will be revoked & as we were badly affected, compensation will be sought (if it’s not already). Either way, the PL have got a huge mess to sort out.

Whatever the proposals they suggest, the reds will find it hard to vote.

Is my take on this correct???

 

[CC1]

Then they will have to put forward a vote that does get a majority, like shall we scrap APTs? Only takes a block of seven clubs standing firm.

As I said though, they will be lobbying for votes and won't put a motion forward until they have them, I imagine. They are already saying no vote next week, aren't they?

If it’s a no vote situation then we still win because the APTs are illegal & we are due compensation

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

No, it wasn't ruled illegal to not include loans without interest just discriminatory

OK, so what I meant was that they will have to include loans but apply interest.

 

[CC1]

Yup. I can imagine Arsenal and Brighton voting against rules which include shareholder loans as APTs. They might only support a complete scrapping of APT rules and some other mechanism to stop excessive spending. What fun.

In that case, the rules remain illegal I think!!

 

[spacecadet]

Whatever they propose - they have still got to deal with the current irregularities. So they HAVE to pass changes to the rules that affected the “gulf” states. If the clubs with loans don’t have to pay interest then APTs are null & void. If they are not backdated, then all APTs prior to the new rules will be revoked & as we were badly affected, compensation will be sought (if it’s not already). Either way, the PL have got a huge mess to sort out.

Whatever the proposals they suggest, the reds will find it hard to vote.

Is my take on this correct???

Sincerely hope you're right Blue.

 

[bluemoon32]

So, seeing as the consensus changes by the minute, did we fucking win or not ?????

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I thought we could rely on Fulham too, but wow. How wrong can you be? Snakes.

Imbecilic snakes - seemingly happy to be taken up the arse by the cabal bullies.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fucking hell you have seven bread snappers

Possibly, but I only admit to six ..... three boys, three girls. The older ones all grown up and living in a different continent, luckily :)

 

[Rory Bluelow]

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.

I have quickly read the whole judgement. I came away with the impression that the tribunal were over sympathetic to the PL in some areas such as the use of Nielsen alone, and their view that there was no bias. I think that is not the end of those matters and while the decisions of the tribunal are binding, there is nothing to stop City arguing about their application if the club is in dispute with the PL over future APTs. I am still not clear over how the PL decide that a transaction is Associated. It seems to me the PL take the view that Mansour is so influential that ALL AbuDhabi companies constitute an Association. Can anybody give an example of how Mansour has influenced a company of which he is not a director or officer?

I think I’ve read (presumably on here) that City’s sponsorship from Hays was reciprocal to some exclusivity they were given in an Abu Dhabi contract and Nexen may similarly arise from links via F1. Can’t personally vouch for the accuracy of that - but it seems feasible and that how business gets done. Given Mansour’s and Khaldoon’s position and status in Abu Dhabi, they will have considerable heft with AD Companies and also those doing serious business there - not to mention aspirants and new entrants hoping to grow business in AD. The cartel at the PL recognise that, but somehow stopping it is no easy task. The horse has bolted.

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

Imbecilic snakes - seemingly happy to be taken up the arse by the cabal bullies.

Alistair McIntosh probably still mad he didn't get to ride the gravy train at City when Abu Dhabi took over...

 

[halfcenturyup]

If it’s a no vote situation then we still win because the APTs are illegal & we are due compensation

That depends, I think.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Alistair McIntosh probably still mad he didn't get to ride the gravy train at City when Abu Dhabi took over...

Of course, I'd forgotten that **** was at Fulham.

 

[give it to gordon]

What are the pl voting on ?

To ignore the ruling and voting to keep the illegal rules and to ignore making loans payback with interest ?

Or new rules ?

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

What are the pl voting on ?

To ignore the ruling and voting to keep the illegal rules and to ignore making loans payback with interest ?

Or new rules ?

Nothing yet. First they have to try and figure out what they can get away with...

They are backed up in a corner right now.