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

halfcenturyup said:
And that is exactly what is wrong with the structure of the PL. The PL should be proposing rules that are for the benefit of the league as a whole, not just any old rule stupid rule that 14 myopic clubs will vote for.

You can be sure Masters is talking to the legal people from Liverpool, Arsenal and United to decide what to do next. The ****.
Click to expand...

I suspect they will be explaining that his suicide appears to be his next best move. All three clubs seem very keen on welfare issues .
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
He's in his mid-30's and has spent all his career in academia, as a student, research fellow or a lecturer. Whereas Leaf is a practicing lawyer in Sports Law.

I think someone said on here a while back that an academic could have a very different standpoint on an issue compared to a "real" lawyer.
Click to expand...
We've all worked with them, all the certificates from university and zero experience - when things in real life don't go as per the text book - they're fucked.
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, either City didn’t challenge the evidence effectively, thought it futile to challenge or the Tribunal rejected City’s arguments on the reality of RPTs. If City had made material submissions on the point, I suspect we’d have seen them in the judgment so, most likely, we tactically decided to fight other battles especially as it sounds like there were no documents disclosed on the topic before 2021.

In reality, it seems to me that it couldn’t be said to be that hard to challenge a designation of a RPT given that UEFA did exactly that in 2014 (assuming the press was true that it concluded both Etihad and Etisalat were actually RPTs "In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline." https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league) - although it didn’t bother in 2020.

City couldn’t make that submission however without bringing focus to UEFAs conclusion that City’s accounts were wrong on that point.
Click to expand...
I agree the tribunal probably thought they had bigger fish to fry, but City plainly did challenge the explanation of why the new rules on APTs were introduced. What surprised me was that these apparent concerns the PL and the clubs had about why the previous RPT rules were ineffective was given so little scrutiny. The tribunal seems to have ignored the possibility that the evidence from the redshirts and others was self serving, and they seem to have ignored the possibility that concrete examples of the RPT system being abused appear to have been non existent. As you say, there may have been reasons on both sides not to rely too much on UEFAs failure to land the RPT allegations re Etihad but it has been known for a tribunal to be all the more interested in evidence that both sides appear not to want to dwell on.

Since we are looking at three exceptionally experienced lawyers I can’t see how they could have considered the evidence the PL was relying on without being at least aware of the possibility that City’s competitors were giving evidence against City for reasons of self interest. Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied on was subjected to so little critical analysis. The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn’t matter.

Personally I can only find one piece of objective evidence that might be thought to justify the move from an ex post to an ex ante system, namely the length of time the 115 charges have taken to come to trial, and even that wasn’t subjected to any sort of analysis, eg that the PL plainly did nothing while the UEFA case was ongoing.

However in the final analysis I don’t think they were interested in second guessing why the PL chose to move to a different system. They were plainly satisfied that it wasn’t simply a change made for capricious or bad faith reasons - I just don’t think they needed that much persuading on that.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
He's in his mid-30's and has spent all his career in academia, as a student, research fellow or a lecturer. Whereas Leaf is a practicing lawyer in Sports Law.

I think someone said on here a while back that an academic could have a very different standpoint on an issue compared to a "real" lawyer.
Click to expand...

The thing is, I think, that sports law doesn't really help much with sophisticated competition law cases. I am pretty sure the three arbitrators have as much competition law experience as it's possible to have. If not, the parties chose unwisely. The fact that nobody really knows what is going on doesn't reflect at all on the arbitrators but on everyone else who is scrambling around trying to make sense of it.
 
meltonblue said:
Got you. The Portsmouth one is interesting as that really shows the fallacy of the reasons behind putting in PSR in the first place as they’d have still have passed PSR. Including shareholder loans in APTs wouldn’t have changed their plight either, it was allowing shareholder loans at all rather than equity that ultimately was their downfall (similar with Abramovic and Chelsea recently).

That’s still the issue with PSR to me. Until it puts in measures that focus on the balance sheet as much as the P&L, it can’t be said to have sustainability as its main motivation, it just doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t go far enough to do that.
Click to expand...
Or, Portsmouth was just a pretext for those who just wanted to make it harder for us…
 
Chris in London said:
I agree the tribunal probably thought they had bigger fish to fry, but City plainly did challenge the explanation of why the new rules on APTs were introduced. What surprised me was that these apparent concerns the PL and the clubs had about why the previous RPT rules were ineffective was given so little scrutiny. The tribunal seems to have ignored the possibility that the evidence from the redshirts and others was self serving, and they seem to have ignored the possibility that concrete examples of the RPT system being abused appear to have been non existent. As you say, there may have been reasons on both sides not to rely too much on UEFAs failure to land the RPT allegations re Etihad but it has been known for a tribunal to be all the more interested in evidence that both sides appear not to want to dwell on.

Since we are looking at three exceptionally experienced lawyers I can’t see how they could have considered the evidence the PL was relying on without being at least aware of the possibility that City’s competitors were giving evidence against City for reasons of self interest. Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied on was subjected to so little critical analysis. The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn’t matter.

Personally I can only find one piece of objective evidence that might be thought to justify the move from an ex post to an ex ante system, namely the length of time the 115 charges have taken to come to trial, and even that wasn’t subjected to any sort of analysis, eg that the PL plainly did
Click to expand...


@ Chris in London, I found your last sentence in para 2 a bit concerning, although you didn't labour it. - " The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn't matter ".

I also noted your comment " Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied upon was given so little critical analysis "

It reads to me that you considered it remiss of the panel - Am I correct in my interpretation of that comment, and if so would City's barristers not be able to challenge , should they agree with your reading of the situation ?
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
I agree the tribunal probably thought they had bigger fish to fry, but City plainly did challenge the explanation of why the new rules on APTs were introduced. What surprised me was that these apparent concerns the PL and the clubs had about why the previous RPT rules were ineffective was given so little scrutiny. The tribunal seems to have ignored the possibility that the evidence from the redshirts and others was self serving, and they seem to have ignored the possibility that concrete examples of the RPT system being abused appear to have been non existent. As you say, there may have been reasons on both sides not to rely too much on UEFAs failure to land the RPT allegations re Etihad but it has been known for a tribunal to be all the more interested in evidence that both sides appear not to want to dwell on.

Since we are looking at three exceptionally experienced lawyers I can’t see how they could have considered the evidence the PL was relying on without being at least aware of the possibility that City’s competitors were giving evidence against City for reasons of self interest. Nor is it obvious to me why such evidence as the PL relied on was subjected to so little critical analysis. The only conclusion that makes sense to my mind is that they thought it just didn’t matter.

Personally I can only find one piece of objective evidence that might be thought to justify the move from an ex post to an ex ante system, namely the length of time the 115 charges have taken to come to trial, and even that wasn’t subjected to any sort of analysis, eg that the PL plainly did nothing while the UEFA case was ongoing.

However in the final analysis I don’t think they were interested in second guessing why the PL chose to move to a different system. They were plainly satisfied that it wasn’t simply a change made for capricious or bad faith reasons - I just don’t think they needed that much persuading on that.
Click to expand...
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
 
fulabeer said:
The problem with analogies is that they can over simplify. Real life isn't like that.

What if i visit your house on business. Ie i'm here to fix your boiler.
You ask me to remove my shoes/safety boots. I refuse on the grounds of health and safety.
You then refuse me entry and prevent me from earning my money. You don't get your boiler fixed.

Who's at fault?

The PL seem to think you should remove your shoes regardless if it is lawful or safe, because that is what suits them.
They are in a dominant position as you need to earn money. They know you know, that they will just get somebody else. So they are said to be "abusing" their position.

In practice, what you have to agree is a lawful solution that suits us both. That may be i wear "over protectors" on my shoes/boots. Or i lay down carpet protectors.
I can then lawfully go about my business, you get your boiler fixed!
Click to expand...
I reckon we should all go round to @Chris in London's house, wearing a variety of footwear, from ballet slippers to muddy wellies and see who he lets in.
 
I presumed the PL could simply introduce laws then just get them passed via vote.

Is there actually a procedure whereby it has had to pass all of its own laws in other words a vetting procedure where it's members give it a stamp of approval?
 
slbsn said:
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but I’d have thought even a half hearted challenge raises serious questions where the evidence is as flimsy as that!
 
slbsn said:
I think you are asking too much of the Tribunal. If City only challenged half heartedly (I think the lack of discussion suggests this is the case) the Tribunal had no grounds to reject Herbert’s evidence. This is especially so when the counter argument is one of bad faith - that’s bound to need cogent evidence and forceful submission that just wasn’t there or available.
Click to expand...

Does the record of the proceedings have to include everything that happened in the hearing or can things that, in the end, weren't disputed be left out?

Thinking maybe both parties wanted to leave the discussion around RPTs and FMV of City's historical transactions to the 115 panel. The PL, maybe, because they have a weak case that could have undermined their whole APT ruleset. The club, maybe, because the burden of proof switches in the 115.

And, in the end, the issue didn't change the award, so no reason to push it and maybe get an unfavourable ruling that affects the other hearing: the rules have been declared unlawful anyway.
 
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