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

Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?
Click to expand...
Cutting through the fog, City’s legal team have made their position quite clear. In its present guise, APT is unlawful in the main, therefore unenforceable, which renders it in effect null & void.

After the initial "we won" bluster from the PL, Masters withdrew from his golf day with the PL's broadcasting partners, & had to defer the PL's hastily called meeting for 12 days, whilst they reconsidered their initial claim that “a small number of discrete elements” of APT (which doesn’t comply with competition law), “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs”.

Simon Cliff has spoken, & judging by the PL's later position of them now “taking the necessary time” to decide how to respond to the verdict, I'd rather go with the considered view of the City lawyer who was in the room than ones who weren't.

APT in its present guise is unlawful, unfair & unreasonable, therefore unenforceable, so in effect it's legally null and void.
 
Last edited:
Asa's left peg said:
I have a cunning plan. Let's start all over again and have a clean slate for everyone and then make it about debt.

I'm surprised it hasn't been raised before!
Click to expand...
Once we are cleared on all but compliance I wouldn't be surprised if this idea gets a airing,minus the debt part of course (the turkeys won't vote for Christmas).
 
Dribble said:
Cutting through the fog, City’s legal team have made their position quite clear. In its present guise, APT is unlawful in the main, therefore unenforceable, which renders it in effect null & void.

After the initial "we won" bluster from the PL, Masters withdrew from his golf day with the PL's broadcasting partners, & further had to defer the PL's hastily called meeting for 12 days, whilst they reconsidered their initial claim that “a small number of discrete elements” of APT (which doesn’t comply with competition law), “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs”.

Simon Cliff has spoken, & judging by the PL's later position of them now “taking the necessary time” to decide how to respond to the verdict, I'd rather go with the considered view of the City lawyer who was in the room, than random opinion.

APT in its present guise is unlawful, unfair & unreasonable, therefore unenforceable, so in effect it's legally null and void.
Click to expand...
Im aware of the that it was the rules 'being retroactively applied' i don't think will happen tbh. It may though just gut feeling
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
Im aware of the that it was the rules 'being retroactively applied' i don't think will happen tbh. It may though just gut feeling
Click to expand...
Hence why I said the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. If they apply shareholder loans retrospectively, they have to apply sanctions to those affected clubs retroactively, which will open a new can of worms.

If they scrap APT, I'd imagine clubs already affected by the unlawful rules, will have grounds for damages. It could get worse. If a relegated club argues their chances of PL safety were fatally damaged by their inability to strengthen their squad as needed because of APT, that's the other can of worms waiting for the PL.

City's legal team have been very clear with their view on the immediate future of APT. It's unlawful & unenforceable. It seems the PL have shot themselves in the foot...
 
Last edited:
johnny crossan said:
Our retained legals Messrs Pannick, Screwem & Jailem will be rubbing their hands if they get enough yank votes to attempt to go down that road.
Click to expand...
Maybe, clubs voted to leave them out in the first instance, don't see anything happened retrospectively tbh. Rules will be amended, process updated and everyone moves on.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Do you think shareholders loans for APT and shareholders loans for FFP/PSR are separate issues?

Simplistically, you would think if the treatment of shareholder loans makes the APT rules unlawful, then it makes the PSR rules unlawful too, if challenged. And if the rules have been applied unlawfully since inception, that is a big problem.

But, I suppose, there may be different arguments for the current PSR position compared to the current APT position.
Click to expand...
The judgment seems pretty clear to me that if tested PSR is also unlawful per the shareholder loan point - so separate but deeply connected. But I think it will be fixed.

As it happens I think there is an error in para 258 on this point. It says the Tribunal have been asked whether the exclusion of shareholder loans from the PSR distorts competition. But then go on to answer for APT Rules. City submitted that the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules was an object restriction. And the Tribunal agreed but it did not conclude on PSR as far as I can see unless anyone can spot it.




1729593324964.png
 
slbsn said:
The judgment seems pretty clear to me that if tested PSR is also unlawful per the shareholder loan point - so separate but deeply connected. But I think it will be fixed.

As it happens I think there is an error in para 258 on this point. It says the Tribunal have been asked whether the exclusion of shareholder loans from the PSR distorts competition. But then go on to answer for APT Rules. City submitted that the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules was an object restriction. And the Tribunal agreed but it did not conclude on PSR as far as I can see unless anyone can spot it.




View attachment 135831
Click to expand...
I recall an article in the NYT which claimed the "object" description above implied it was knowingly included as unlawful, do you agree with that interpretation?
 
johnny crossan said:
I recall an article in the NYT which claimed the "object" description above implied it was knowingly included as unlawful, do you agree with that interpretation?
Click to expand...
Don't understand the question. If you mean does a finding of object restriction equate to a finding that its inclusion was by design, yes I think it does.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Do you think shareholders loans for APT and shareholders loans for FFP/PSR are separate issues?

Simplistically, you would think if the treatment of shareholder loans makes the APT rules unlawful, then it makes the PSR rules unlawful too, if challenged. And if the rules have been applied unlawfully since inception, that is a big problem.

But, I suppose, there may be different arguments for the current PSR position compared to the current APT position.
Click to expand...

that's exactly what City went for reading the judgment. They wanted shareholder loans classed as RPT's and I think they've got that reading between the lines. Which possibly makes the whole PSR rules unlawful as well
 
The point I don't understand regarding these loans is under UEFA they are included in the ffp, but not included in the pl.
So how does that work ? Do clubs in Europe have two sets of finance books, one without the loans for the PL. Than another finance book which includes the loans for UEFA ffp ?
 
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