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

[Stockton Heath Blue]

The way APT rules are unlawful due to shareholder loan exclusions, would the same apply to PSR and FFP and all those historic rules will be null and void ? We might not have challenged those rules in the APT case but this sets the precedent i guess and City can challenge the unlawful nature of PSR and FFP as well (unless they did include the shareholder loans provisions in PSR & FFP?).

I was under the impression that UEFA do apply a FMV to shareholder loans for their FFP calculations but don't shoot me if I'm wrong

 

[bluesteve1964]

So it's a case of Masters, C U Next Tuesday!!

 

[KS55]

I wonder what they will say…….I hope their legal advice is to drop the rule.

 

[Dribble]

I wonder what they will say…….I hope their legal advice is to drop the rule.

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

 

[KS55]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, or fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

Yes, even if they drop the rule, there will still be actions for damages.

 

[Dribble]

Yes, even if they drop the rule, there will still be actions for damages.

The best laid plans & all that! :-)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That meeting will just be a vote to disallow the Stones goal.

 

[Nellies left peg]

Hopefully will be to discuss the implications of imminent points deductions for the dippers and Arsenal for their interest free loans that were deemed to be not lawful

 

[Roachy]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

All in a futile attempt to stymie City, Newcastle and any others who dare to challenge an ill thought out and contrived status quo.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Expect to see the media go into overdrive then.

 

[Centurions]

are

are you a maths teacher? complete with leather patches on your suite jacket elbows?

A sofa and two armchairs?

 

[tweety]

Does that paper still take the view that we LOST the case, even though the APT rules were declared unlawful?

It's not printed anything otherwise, Newcastle are now it's chosen prey.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

Maybe let’s just backdate them 10 years or so !
That’s usually seems fair game for them
Ha ha

 

[flb]

We ground United on the pitch , then we did Liverpool, now it’s Arsenal , one man has done this and it’s Sir Pep Guardiola , i just hope he does at least one more season after this to make Arsenal sack captain black- then it’s game done for our new era.

 

[cheekybids]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

If they were a genuine operator that only wants the correct decision to apply rather than a favourable outcome for certain teams then it wouldn’t matter to them.

 

[Dribble]

If they were a genuine operator that only wants the correct decision to apply rather than a favourable outcome for certain teams then it wouldn’t matter to them. They wouldn’t give a flying fuck if it was

The PL are run by those "certain teams", so it'll be interesting to see how they intend to wangle their way out of this fine legal mess they've gotten themselves into without affecting the cartel clubs in the process.

What a wicked web they've woven... :-)

 

[nmc]

Hopfully get some early leaks from the meeting , are we invited ? If so take pannek and put the shits up them

It’s certainly the case that the cartel are likely to opt for a quick fix and a paper over the cracks approach which in all likelihood will lead to City going back to Court for clarification.

 

[jimharri]

A sofa and two armchairs?

Made in Chesterfield?

 

[BlueAnorak]

The Telegraph artticle is so biast it's untrue.
The point that scrutinisation of Arsenal and Liverpool occurs under UEFA rules are irrelevant. As has been proven with City.

The PL legal advisors probably told them they were in trouble on a number of counts.
Probadly as follows:

1. Loans are either included or they're not.
- If the current value of loans is excluded (with only new loans included) from the scope of any replacement rules, then sponsorships prior to the introduction of "new improved and legal" rules (snigger) must also be excluded.
if theyre not then City will go back to the tribuneral and win again as sure as night follows day.

2. To comply with the ruling the final decision on sponsorships will have to be arbitured by an independent body and NOT by the PL.

3. Information will have to be shared with City as to the reasons why the PL want to block the sponsorships at various stages in the process. Including information about comparable sponsorship amounts by other clubs.
- As the sponsorships that were rejected were not much bigger than other clubs recent clubs recent sponsorships then the PL clearly wants to pay City even more money.

4. The PL will have to agree compensation with City for:
- Loss of two sponsorships.
AND
- The fact that the rules were declared ILLEGAL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE.

What a bunch of clowns.

 

[BlueAnorak]

The Telegraph artticle is so biast it's untrue.
The point that scrutinisation of Arsenal and Liverpool occurs under UEFA rules are irrelevant. As has been proven with City.

The PL legal advisors probably told them they were in trouble on a number of counts.
Probadly as follows:

1. Loans are either included or they're not.
- If they're not then sponsorships prior to the new improved rules must also be excluded.
if theyre not then City will go back to the tribuneral and win again as sure as night follows day.

2. To comply with the ruling the final decision on sponsorships will have to be arbitured by an independent body and NOT by the PL.

3. Information will have to be shared with City as to the reasons why the PL want to block the sponsorships at various stages in the process. Including information about comparable sponsorship amounts by other clubs.
- As the sponsorships that were rejected were not much bigger than other clubs recent clubs recent sponsorships then the PL clearly wants to pay City even more money.

4. The PL will have to agree compensation with City for:
- Loss of two sponsorships.
AND
- The fact that the rules were declared ILLEGAL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE.

What a bunch of clowns.

I see the Telegraph changed the article from this Thursday to next Tuesday as though nothing has happened...
No mention of legal and financial advice.

The Telegraph's football journalists hatred of City knows no bounds.