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

StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
The only criticism I have of Martin Samuel's article concerns his discussion of the role of Sir Jim's investment in the rags. Samuel is right to argue that the rags could be involved in the title race if Ineos were allowed to finance the changes needed at the club - but PSR prevents this. This is far too charitable to Sir Jim. There is much more evidence to show that Sir Jim put money into the club BECAUSE the rules would NOT allow him to finance any real change. There is no evidence of any real disagreement with the Glazers and no real evidence of a desire to spend, no desire of real unhappiness with the rules. What we have seen with his other clubs is rather a determination to cut costs and increase profitability at a cost of bringing no success on the field. At the swamp we have seen an emphasis on cutting costs coupled with the worst start to a league season since ... Sir Jim is the kind of "investor" that PSR attracts ... a hard faced "what's in it for me? ... "loads a momey" wide boy. Pay no tax, put nowt in, make a packet and stuff the rest.
Click to expand...
Bang on mate, its scruff's safety blanket "the rules stop me from spending dont they".
 
dadnlad said:
how much more do they want to spend they just spent 600 million
Click to expand...
Well, I suppose a few bob on a leaking roof, and a few broken seats. Then there's the new 100000 seater super stadium. But Scruffy seems to hope the fans will fix the seats themselves and everybody else's fans will pay for the stadium. He really doesn't like paying taxes so it wouldn't be a good idea to expect too much. He's only a poor billionaire.
 
How has the Daily Fail got hold of the 14 page document?

A 14-page document outlining proposed changes and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting at the swanky Nobu Hotel in Portman Square.

The inclusion of shareholder loans – monies lent to clubs from those with stakes in them – is one of three changes being proposed across the 14 pages.

Instead, that exclusion has now been removed, although equity injection investments remain exempt. The other two focus on access to a databank of commercial deals used by the Premier League to reach a verdict on whether a proposed sponsorship is at fair market value (FMV) and the reversal of a number of changes brought in earlier this year.

The definition of FMV has been changed from whether the amount ‘could’ be sold rather than ‘would’ be sold between willing parties. The words ‘in normal market conditions’ have been removed, along with three lengthy paragraphs outlining its definition by the Premier League. There is an argument that in exceptional circumstances companies linked to countries in the midst of huge drives for exposure, such as Saudi Arabia, would be willing to pay a premium.

One issue the competition may face is a reluctance from those who benefit from shareholder loans to vote for the changes. And clarity may need to be sought from the tribunal panel on whether the amendments satisfy their requirements.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League summons clubs for crunch meeting regarding APT rules

MIKE KEEGAN: A 14-page document outlining proposed amendments and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
houraisen said:
Click to expand...


It may be that Stefan knows the answer to this already, and if so I'd be interested.

The gist of the tribunal's decision was that the substance of the APT rules as initially introduced was, with the exception of the shareholder loans exclusion, more or less okay. What made the substance of the rules unlawful (I'm ignoring the procedural stuff) was not just the shareholder loans exclusion but also the 2024 amendments, which collectively had the effect of making it much easier for the PL to block an APT if in its judgment the transaction was above fair market value.

As I read the Mail article and Stefan's tweet, the suggested amendments to the APT rules seem to dispense with the shareholder loans exemption and the 2024 amendments.

Except for one.

The original rules said that the PL would not hold an APT to be other than at fair market value unless the amount payable under the agreement was "evidently" more than would be payable on an arms' length basis.

The removal of that qualification so that all that mattered was the PL's judgment that the amount payable under the APT was above FMV - not "evidently above", simply above - was part of the tribunal's overall reasoning in finding the regulations unlawful.

To put the same point another way, the removal of that qualification to the APT rules plainly had the effect of lowering the standard of what the PL had to prove to block an APT. That was part of an overall watering down of the hurdles the PL had to get over to show an APT was above fair market value which was an important part in the conclusion that the rules, taken together, were unlawful. The proposed new rules undo the reversal of the burden of proof which the 2024 amendments included, but they don't appear to reverse also this reduction to the standard of proof.

It may be that this is covered in the new proposals, but as I read them, although the PL has rowed back on all the other 2024 modifications (which were in large measure why the APT rules were found to be unlawful) they have not rowed back on this.

Had they simply unwound the 2024 amendments in full, I would be pretty sure that the reworked APT rules - if passed - would be lawful. The fact that they appear to have retained the lower standard of poof - making it easier for the PL to prove an APT is not at fair market value - makes me think that if passed, this new version of the rules might also be unlawful.

Whether the club would challenge this is not clear. What is clear is that it is easier for the PL, assuming the new proposed rules are adopted, for the PL to show an APT is above fair market value than it was when the original APT rules were introduced in 2021.

Assuming it's right that this part of the 2024 amendments survives (and it may be that it doesn't and that just hasn't been included within the summaries) it remains to be seen whether the new regulations now fall on the right side of being lawful.

There is an argument that, by retaining one of the features that made the APT rules unlawful, they won't.
 
Does anyone think City have formed an alliance with some of the PL clubs on the QT, and formed a possible blocking vote of 7 clubs?
 
chaddblue said:
Looks like we were pretty successful in getting the rules changed considering the media were adamant we didn't win
Click to expand...
The media machine have painted a truly horrid picture of MCFC since 2008.

The changes made clearly show unlawful behaviour from the league that directly impacted city’s commercial growth. The amended rules will be binned.

Again tho, the story should be…why is it ok for the premier league to come after one of its clubs and why is the media not asking this question!!!

Instead they will plaster lies and misinformation all over their front pages and x timelines for engagement.
 
Last edited:
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