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

StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
So, you think the situation can be easily remedied by a few discreet changes?
Click to expand...
discreet no, but they have the majority of the rules written. I don't think a major re-write from scratch again will be needed, just adjustments needed. Timeframe, right to challenge/reply etc.

Maybe the rip them all up and start again though, once the APT clarification arrives later. (no idea when thats due)
 
johnny crossan said:
So you agree with Matt Lawton in The Times: "Crucially, the panel deemed the rules to be unlawful, and in breach of competition law “by object”, a serious and damning infringement akin to price-fixing by cartel members."?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t call it damning or akin to price fixing but it’s a serious infringement which is why the rules will need to change.
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
discreet no, but they have the majority of the rules written. I don't think a major re-write from scratch again will be needed, just adjustments needed. Timeframe, right to challenge/reply etc.

Maybe the rip them all up and start again though, once the APT clarification arrives later. (no idea when thats due)
Click to expand...
The rules are unlawful. Cannot be enforced. The PL have two problems: drafting regulations which are consistent with the law (and City will keep a careful eye on this) and getting the votes to accept these new regs. Not easy, especially for a governing body which never really intended FFP to be fair, or PSR to have too much to do with sustainability.
 
Braggster said:
I agree with this regarding the position going forward. I think the amendments required to the rules to make them compliant are relatively straightforward and not particularly dramatic (although possibly still a win in City's eyes). Of course, the PL will also have to pass a vote with new drafting in and that may not be straightforward depending on how the various interest groups among the PL clubs shake out.

The historic position is however much more complicated. The problem is that without the inclusion of shareholder loans as APTs, the rules are unlawful. And it seems likely that several clubs may have failed PSR if they had been included (or even if not failed, had less headroom and been able to spend less). You might say that if they'd known this those clubs would've restructured their shareholder loans. Maybe- probably, even - but it's not certain.

So this means you have a situation where some clubs have been punished under unlawful rules when their competitors (who may have breached equally or even more severely if the rules had been lawful). I do see that as a really difficult problem for the PL to resolve.
Click to expand...
In practice, nobody will challenge that historic hypothesis so it’s all moot
 
halfcenturyup said:
They normally have a LAG meeting first, so say start at 11 and finish in time for a nice lunch. Expect some leaks around now ......
Click to expand...

It’s online, I would Imagine each club will have far more than a couple of reps listening in. The cartel will have their press officers in the room.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Seems like a mistake in wording. I guess. Can happen. There are plenty of spelling mistakes too.

On the unlawfulness of APT, though. It's your view that the unlawfulness can be corrected easily going forward, but that damages can be awarded to any losses incurred as a result of the application of unlawful rules?

If we have the same situation for PSR because of shareholder loans, which seems likely if there is a challenge, surely that is opening up an enormous can of worms? I am beginning to see why Masters cancelled his golf event now.
Click to expand...
More material than a spelling error.

Yes re unlawfulness but causation and loss the big hurdle. I’m not convinced there is a meaningful loss.

I doubt anyone will challenge PSR on this basis before they change the rules partly because there is little gain from causing the PL complete chaos. Would be an act of self sabotage. Its notable City kept the challenge to relatively discreet points around matters they always said they felt were potentially unlawful.
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
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.
Click to expand...
How do clubs move on without reverting back to the original rpt rules ???

The cartel clubs obviously don't want that, several clubs outside the cartel don't want shareholder loans included & City would return to the courts if they try to force a similar 18-2 democratic vote over any illegalities
 
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