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

halfcenturyup said:
I think you have also misunderstood the current APT rules. Contracts have to be re-written to fmv, it's not just a question of adjusting the PL impact for PSR:

View attachment 134891
View attachment 134892


Which, again, is my question. What legal right does the PL have to impose that on a company not subject to the PL rules or, for that matter, even a company that is subject to the PL rules.
Click to expand...
The short answer to your original question is it is definitely NOT illegal to provide a soft loan. The question of whether it should be adjusted - for PSR calculations only to comply with PL rules - has I believe been answered by the decree of the tribunal as it relates to each clubs 'membership' of the PL. The stuff about re-writing contracts is outside my pay grade and I'm definitely not qualified to comment with any authority whatsoever.
 
Chris in London said:
The right is that if a club wants to play in the PL it must abide by the PL rules.

What right do I have to tell you to take your shoes off? None whatsoever

unless you want to come in my house.
Click to expand...

Oh. Fair enough, then. It's that simple?

Nothing about "abuse of a dominant position requiring directors to foresake their Companies Acts responsibility to perform their duties for the benefit of their shareholders", or some such?

A little disappointing, but I can understand the principle, at least :)

A contract has two sides, though. What about the third party? What right does the PL have to insist that a third party, who doesn't even want to come into your house, also has to take his shoes off?
 
Craggers said:
And this is exactly why club Execs shouldn't have a vote on PSR rules as it allows for a conflict of interest. The rules should be drafted by independent financial experts and take debt into consideration, instead of having the primary aim of 'unlawfully' restricting investment.
Click to expand...

It’s never independent, there will always be someone lobbying the rule makers.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
You spelt it wrong!
Click to expand...
I leave the correct spelling to those who wish to be thought of as BM’s very own thesaurus, dictionary, lexicon, encyclopaedia, reference, word store. My spell checker does not recognise the word. Does it really exist?
 
BlueAnorak said:
Interestingly, I worked out the other week that we repaid the loan to get the stadium ready for football (£22m) around about 2014

Approximate CIty Payments so far:
2003-2010 (7 years) @£2m = £14m
2011-2024 (14 years) @£3m =£21m
Total = £36m

Overall stadium costs.
Construction costs £112m
Build for football £22m
Fit out for football £20m (paid by City)

Indeed we will have paid for the Commweath games stadium in 30 years time.
Click to expand...
The terms of the deal mean we can reclaim the money paid when/if we buy the freehold. (I think….please correct if wrong.)
 
Chris in London said:
The right is that if a club wants to play in the PL it must abide by the PL rules.

What right do I have to tell you to take your shoes off? None whatsoever

unless you want to come in my house.
Click to expand...
But those rules must be both fair and legal. If they are not, the tyranny of the majority applies and the PL would be guilty of abusing its dominant position. Just voting rules in is not good enough after the panel’s verdict.
 
KS55 said:
The terms of the deal mean we can reclaim the money paid when/if we buy the freehold. (I think….please correct if wrong.)
Click to expand...
I've never heard that before.

When the club was considering buying the freehold of the stadium in order to build a new one where the academy is there was a refusal by Sport England to allow it. It was political as I don't think they thought the optics of a purpose built stadium for the Commonwealth Games being demolished and replaced by a training ground would look great. It didn't make sense as it is purely a football stadium for use by us only but the outcome was the club didn't buy it outright.
 
halfcenturyup said:
A contract has two sides, though.
Click to expand...

I always wonder about the contract between the PL and the club when the "City signed up to it" argument rears it's head. City became a shareholder in the PL (and a subscriber to it's then rules) when it was formed, lost its share when we were relegated, and regained it's share in 2001. When the FFP rules were introduced we were an established member and have remained so ever since.

As far as I'm concerned, the PL has a monopoly on the football industry at the top level so any business already operating at the top level of the industry has never had any option but to be a member of the PL in order to practice it's business.

The alternative, as it seems to me, is to "voluntarily" drop down a division and become a member of the Football League but be, permanently, denied access to the higher level (and its income streams) or cease trading altogether and all that entails. In short, it seems to me, that any contract between the PL and it's clubs is not one that the clubs have any realistic option but to "sign up to". At the risk of rousing the lawyers on here, that looks "coercive" to me.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Interestingly, I worked out the other week that we repaid the loan to get the stadium ready for football (£22m) around about 2014

Approximate CIty Payments so far:
2003-2010 (7 years) @£2m = £14m
2011-2024 (14 years) @£3m =£21m
Total = £36m

Overall stadium costs.
Construction costs £112m
Build for football £22m
Fit out for football £20m (paid by City)

Indeed we will have paid for the Commweath games stadium in 30 years time.
Click to expand...
14 years @ £3m = £42m.
 
Chris in London said:
I think you are drawing a distinction without a difference.

If something is void it is as if it never happened, but that is not to say it did not actually happen.

Suppose two thieves agree to split the proceeds of their crimes 50/50. One steals more than the other and wants to keep it. The other cannot sue to enforce the agreement because an unlawful agreement is void. But the agreement exists however: both entered into it. So it cannot be said that the agreement does not exist, it clearly does. But it is unenforceable.

As I said, a fine distinction perhaps.
Click to expand...

The distinction is that if the APT rules are void, there are no APT rules. I suppose you could say the PL decision to introduce them did happen, but the tribunal ruling means it is as if the rules never existed.

The point, as I understand from City's offer to explain it, is that the PL cannot amend the existing rules. There are no rules.

They might want to use the wording of the non-existent rules as a starting point for drawing up new rules, but they cannot amend, tweak, or just add loans to the APT rules. At the moment, there are no APT rules.

The rules are not enforceable, because there are no rules.

And unlike the PL thieves, City did not agree to the agreement.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
I've never heard that before.

When the club was considering buying the freehold of the stadium in order to build a new one where the academy is there was a refusal by Sport England to allow it. It was political as I don't think they thought the optics of a purpose built stadium for the Commonwealth Games being demolished and replaced by a training ground would look great. It didn't make sense as it is purely a football stadium for use by us only but the outcome was the club didn't buy it outright.
Click to expand...
The legacy issue means we can’t abolish it and, I think, alterations have to get legacy permission, but there is nothing to stop us buying the freehold.
 
Red shirt propaganda in full effect now, it's truly embarrassing as well as deeply deeply concerning for the sanctity of football

1000030937.jpg
 
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