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

[halfcenturyup]

It would be nice to see a summary (an honest one) of what we actually win and what it means. This thread is too fucking difficult to follow.

Let me give it a go.

The rules were found to be unlawful for three reasons: never including shareholder loans within their scope; certain changes introduced in 2024 that removed a margin of error; and never allowing clubs to comment on the data the PL used to calculate FMV.

The rules were also found to be unfairly applied to two of the clubs sponsorship deals so the PL conclusions were set aside.

And the PL caused unreasonable delays in the assessment of two sponsorships.

This was a partial award. The tribunal gave time to the parties to agree on a way forward with the potential for injunctive relief (more legally binding decisions of the tribunal) later and put off any damage or cost awards until later. A final award will be made when the parties and the tribunal are ready.

Who won? It's subjective depending on what you think the objectives of City were. If you think they were trying to have all the rules kicked out, then they may have "lost". If you think they were just trying to get their sponsorship deals through and give the PL a bloody nose, then they may have "won".

As always, some uncertainty over what it all means. City seem to say the rules are unlawful so they are null and void since introduction and have to be rewritten. The PL seem to say they can just amend the unlawful parts. We probably need the tribunal to address that in their final award.

Hope that helps.

 

[jacko74]

Did this get any mentions at today’s press conference? I'm assuming not

It's funny how the new narrative in the media is "how boring all this legal stuff is and let's just get back to the football"

How strange considering how often they mention the 115 charges rather than just concentrating on the football.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

It's funny how the new narrative in the media is "how boring all this legal stuff is and let's just get back to the football"

How strange considering how often they mention the 115 charges rather than just concentrating on the football.

I think the change in tone is because they think we’re likely to win on the 115/129 charges. They’re slowly performing a U turn.

 

[Dribble]

It would be nice to see a summary (an honest one) of what we actually win and what it means. This thread is too fucking difficult to follow.

Is APT still being mentioned in the news? Cutting to the chase...

Verdict: Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unlawful. Unfair, Unfair, unfair. Unreasonable, unreasonable. APT null & void & unenforceable.

It's that simple...

Masters' response to the cartel clubs is as follows... \0/

 

[malg]

Let me give it a go.

The rules were found to be unlawful for three reasons: never including shareholder loans within their scope; certain changes introduced in 2024 that removed a margin of error; and never allowing clubs to comment on the data the PL used to calculate FMV.

The rules were also found to be unfairly applied to two of the clubs sponsorship deals so the PL conclusions were set aside.

And the PL caused unreasonable delays in the assessment of two sponsorships.

This was a partial award. The tribunal gave time to the parties to agree on a way forward with the potential for injunctive relief (more legally binding decisions of the tribunal) later and put off any damage or cost awards until later. A final award will be made when the parties and the tribunal are ready.

Who won? It's subjective depending on what you think the objectives of City were. If you think they were trying to have all the rules kicked out, then they may have "lost". If you think they were just trying to get their sponsorship deals through and give the PL a bloody nose, then they may have "won".

As always, some uncertainty over what it all means. City seem to say the rules are unlawful so they are null and void since introduction and have to be rewritten. The PL seem to say they can just amend the unlawful parts. We probably need the tribunal to address that in their final award.

Hope that helps.

Cheers. That helps.

 

[dadnlad]

Has football finished as city had audacity to challenge unlawful rules
Thought not

 

[spinney]

I think the change in tone is because they think we’re likely to win on the 115/129 charges. They’re slowly performing a U turn.

it is boring ...... for them , theyve entered the mid table world of the no hopers and they dont like it when they are not winning, what was the quote from one of the prawn sandwich brigade at OT a while back ... ' i dont pay money to watch utd lose ! ' - well they do now !

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It would be nice to see a summary (an honest one) of what we actually win and what it means. This thread is too fucking difficult to follow.

Here's my take on it (if you consider me honest of course):

PrestwichBlue’s Substack | Substack

My Substack replacing my King of the Kippax column. Write about football finance and politics mainly, particularly where these concern Manchester City. Click to read PrestwichBlue’s Substack, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.

kingofthekippax.substack.com

 

[KS55]

Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there, it’s all gone quiet over there…..
Before the APT case, the redshirts mounted a huge PR campaign about how it would be the end of football if City won the case. It is now a couple of weeks since the panel declared that the APT rules were unlawful and we have a full PL programme this weekend. Football isn’t dead yet.
The PL reacted to the panel’s verdict with typical Masters’ insouciance: oh it’s just a minor adjustment to the rules, we’ll have it solved in no time.
City’s General Counsel said “Oi, not so fast, the rules are unlawful and thus null and void”.
Masters still didn’t get it and arranged meetings with the member clubs………and then cancelled them. Since then, nothing. Not a peep from the ‘master’.
What is happening? I suspect that the PL’s legal team have been giving him strong advice:
- You cannot solve this with a quick fix.
- Your best bet is to junk the APT rules and go back to relying on IAS 24. If you think clubs are not properly declaring Related party transactions, challenge them with an admin rule such that they have to justify associated transactions to the league with an explanation. If you are not satisfied with that, then take action against them, showing these transactions to be caught by IAS 24.
- If you are worried about clubs spending huge sums and killing competition, put more regs in place that limit spending. Forget about trying to police funding.
Hmmm… so what is Masters’ problem. Embarassment? Blow back from the clubs on the money wasted in this wild goose chase?
Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there….

 

[halfcenturyup]

Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there, it’s all gone quiet over there…..
Before the APT case, the redshirts mounted a huge PR campaign about how it would be the end of football if City won the case. It is now a couple of weeks since the panel declared that the APT rules were unlawful and we have a full PL programme this weekend. Football isn’t dead yet.
The PL reacted to the panel’s verdict with typical Masters’ insouciance: oh it’s just a minor adjustment to the rules, we’ll have it solved in no time.
City’s General Counsel said “Oi, not so fast, the rules are unlawful and thus null and void”.
Masters still didn’t get it and arranged meetings with the member clubs………and then cancelled them. Since then, nothing. Not a peep from the ‘master’.
What is happening? I suspect that the PL’s legal team have been giving him strong advice:
- You cannot solve this with a quick fix.
- Your best bet is to junk the APT rules and go back to relying on IAS 24. If you think clubs are not properly declaring Related party transactions, challenge them with an admin rule such that they have to justify associated transactions to the league with an explanation. If you are not satisfied with that, then take action against them, showing these transactions to be caught by IAS 24.
- If you are worried about clubs spending huge sums and killing competition, put more regs in place that limit spending. Forget about trying to police funding.
Hmmm… so what is Masters’ problem. Embarassment? Blow back from the clubs on the money wasted in this wild goose chase?
Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there….

:) It is very quiet. After the initial few tweets from the usual suspects, all the briefing is from the City side. I wonder why?

The only noise against is from Harris / Magic Twat crying about City briefing journalists and investigating the timing around Martin Samuel's first pro-City piece on the APT result as some sort of gotcha. YCMIU. He would be better looking at the timing of Ziegler's first piece on the 115 and draw conclusions from that. What a tosspot.

 

[surprisedbygrass]

Here's my take on it (if you consider me honest of course):

https://kingofthekippax.substack.com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web[/URL

[QUOTE="Prestwich_Blue, post: 1759...com/?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web[/QUOTE]

Excellent read . I am staggered that the Premier League's woeful level of corporate governance isn't one widely known / scrutinized.

You are right . Five board members , two of whom are executives , is simply not enough to permit consistent scrutiny / probity / checks and balances on decisions . In any business you have to have a big enough board to allow for illness / absence at the very minimum .

And you have exposed the conflict of interest at the heart of the PL Board . It's simply not fit for purpose given it's running the most important and profitable domestic league in the world.


It's being run more like a family owned shop that has five or six big suppliers who are best mates with the family . They demand they open all hours instead of predictable hours , stock and advertise only whatever dodgy goods they want to sell while passing off their main rival's goods as faulty, flash in the pan or nasty foreign . Once the rivals goods began selling they couldn't understand not so demanded more and more complicated invoices and paperwork from all suppliers without funding backroom staff at the shop to process this . Meanwhile the original suppliers expect to get preferential treatment and less scrutiny with the paperwork. Most other suppliers are along for the ride as the shop has enough footfall to allow enough of their goods to sell so they can make a living .

No wonder other candidates for the CEO job rejected it before Masters took it on .

 

[KS55]

http://

Excellent read . I am staggered that the Premier League's woeful level of corporate governance isn't one widely known / scrutinized.

You are right . Five board members , two of whom are executives , is simply not enough to permit consistent scrutiny / probity / checks and balances on decisions . In any business you have to have a big enough board to allow for illness / absence at the very minimum .

And you have exposed the conflict of interest at the heart of the PL Board . It's simply not fit for purpose given it's running the most important and profitable domestic league in the world.


It's being run more like a family owned shop that has five or six big suppliers who are best mates with the family . They demand they open all hours instead of predictable hours , stock and advertise only whatever dodgy goods they want to sell while passing off their main rival's goods as faulty, flash in the pan or nasty foreign . Once the rivals goods began selling they couldn't understand not so demanded more and more complicated invoices and paperwork from all suppliers without funding backroom staff at the shop to process this . Meanwhile the original suppliers expect to get preferential treatment and less scrutiny with the paperwork. Most other suppliers are along for the ride as the shop has enough footfall to allow enough of their goods to sell so they can make a living .

No wonder other candidates for the CEO job rejected it before Masters took it on .

I’ve posted in the past about the sweet shop mentality of football clubs management. City were one of the worst in this regard, Khaldoon could hardly miss. Most clubs have moved past it now, the rags prior to Scruffy’s arrival an exception. While the clubs have become more professional, the PL has not. Masters and co need to grow up and realise they are running a major enterprise.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think the change in tone is because they think we’re likely to win on the 115/129 charges. They’re slowly performing a U turn.

It's akin to "City are winning everything but the football is so boring. Nobody cares about them". Preparing the ground for "City have won all the legal arguments, but it's so boring. Who cares about them?".

It's so transparent it's painful.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there, it’s all gone quiet over there…..
Before the APT case, the redshirts mounted a huge PR campaign about how it would be the end of football if City won the case. It is now a couple of weeks since the panel declared that the APT rules were unlawful and we have a full PL programme this weekend. Football isn’t dead yet.
The PL reacted to the panel’s verdict with typical Masters’ insouciance: oh it’s just a minor adjustment to the rules, we’ll have it solved in no time.
City’s General Counsel said “Oi, not so fast, the rules are unlawful and thus null and void”.
Masters still didn’t get it and arranged meetings with the member clubs………and then cancelled them. Since then, nothing. Not a peep from the ‘master’.
What is happening? I suspect that the PL’s legal team have been giving him strong advice:
- You cannot solve this with a quick fix.
- Your best bet is to junk the APT rules and go back to relying on IAS 24. If you think clubs are not properly declaring Related party transactions, challenge them with an admin rule such that they have to justify associated transactions to the league with an explanation. If you are not satisfied with that, then take action against them, showing these transactions to be caught by IAS 24.
- If you are worried about clubs spending huge sums and killing competition, put more regs in place that limit spending. Forget about trying to police funding.
Hmmm… so what is Masters’ problem. Embarassment? Blow back from the clubs on the money wasted in this wild goose chase?
Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there….

On the Masters aggressive quote, he was no doubt forced into it by the cartel, but i believe was pulled in by the APT panel, after they had put their necks/reputations on the line, to give what are minor victories to City, when you consider the importance of the (unproven)not enough evidence ones, and the Leicester panel being found to be corrupt.
So the `it`s all gone quite over there` Well apart from knee knocking, maybe very accurate, as they wait to see if City will appeal.

 

[KS55]

On the Masters aggressive quote, he was no doubt forced into it by the cartel, but i believe was pulled in by the APT panel, after they had put their necks/reputations on the line, to give what are minor victories to City, when you consider the importance of the (unproven)not enough evidence ones, and the Leicester panel being found to be corrupt.
So the `it`s all gone quite over there` Well apart from knee knocking, maybe very accurate, as they wait to see if City will appeal.

I don’t think City have to do anything. The ball is in the PL’s court to come up with a lawful answer to the APT rules.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I don’t think City have to do anything. The ball is in the PL’s court to come up with a lawful answer to the APT rules.

Think they've got to find something that will get a vote in their favour even if it's nowhere near what they'd like to get through.

I'm not too sure that they or especially Masters could risk losing one in the current climate.

 

[cheekybids]

It's akin to "City are winning everything but the football is so boring. Nobody cares about them". Preparing the ground for "City have won all the legal arguments, but it's so boring. Who cares about them?".

It's so transparent it's painful.

“City are only winning because they have a hugely expensively assembled squad.”

“City will only be cleared because they have the best legal team money can buy.”

 

[Roachy]

I don’t think City have to do anything. The ball is in the PL’s court to come up with a lawful answer to the APT rules.

And I think this is the big problem the PL have. They have to create a set of rules that remain within the boundaries of the law, but also ones that they think enough clubs will vote for. In relation to City and the ruling, I think the PL may have to eat a large slice of humble pie.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

“City are only winning because they have a hugely expensively assembled squad.”

“City will only be cleared because they have the best legal team money can buy.”

I've taken to pointing and laughing when those sort of lines are used.

 

[SilverFox2]

I don’t think City have to do anything. The ball is in the PL’s court to come up with a lawful answer to the APT rules.

Agreed, didn't Mr M say as much when his recent statement inferred a long wait while presumably the legality is sorted out.
That in itself is progress if they are indeed trying to prevent further legal action. Surely the financial burden on PL clubs has now to be considered because they must be aware City will attack anything they consider illegal. Perhaps this is now being done properly and Masters can ignore Red Cartel instructions and accept his own expensive legal opinion.

There again maybe he is awaiting instructions from his employers.