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

Rolled back and slightly amended. expected as much. Now to see if City still think they are all unlawful or legal advice has been taken by the PL and the draft is accepted.
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd be staggered if the removal of "evidently" was not also rowed back. Think it is just an omission from the articles published in the Mail and Times (which clearly come from the same place).
 
jrb said:
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?
Click to expand...

City aren’t going to try to block the rules for the sake of it or just to do the PL’s heads in.

They’ll only do that if the rules are unlawful or unreasonable (again).

If they are unlawful or unreasonable I’d expect the other clubs’ legal representatives will tell them to vote against.
 
Stoned Rose said:
City aren’t going to try to block the rules for the sake of it or just to do the PL’s heads in.

They’ll only do that if the rules are unlawful or unreasonable (again).

If they are unlawful or unreasonable I’d expect the other clubs’ legal representatives will tell them to vote against.
Click to expand...
because we thought the APT rules were unreasonable
 
slbsn said:
I'd be staggered if the removal of "evidently" was not also rowed back. Think it is just an omission from the articles published in the Mail and Times (which clearly come from the same place).
Click to expand...

You are probably right - I checked on the PL's initial statement when the ruling came out and they referenced more than once the removal of "evidently" in the 2024 amendments as one of the points the tribunal had specifically commented on. It would be odd if they weren't now rolling that back as well.

Chances are, as you say, it's sloppy reporting/sloppy sourcework.

However...
 
Chris in London said:
You are probably right - I checked on the PL's initial statement when the ruling came out and they referenced more than once the removal of "evidently" in the 2024 amendments as one of the points the tribunal had specifically commented on. It would be odd if they weren't now rolling that back as well.

Chances are, as you say, it's sloppy reporting/sloppy sourcework.

However...
Click to expand...
It is arguably the key point given it was specifically recognised in the original KC advice so I think very little chance it is not coming back. NB: all of City's APT applications were under the old rules so always needed them to be "evidently in excess of FMV"1730909380554.png
 
slbsn said:
It is arguably the key point given it was specifically recognised in the original KC advice so I think very little chance it is not coming back. NB: all of City's APT applications were under the old rules so always needed them to be "evidently in excess of FMV"View attachment 137534
Click to expand...

Good point.

I looked at the tribunal's decision as effectively being "the reason the APT rules were a proportionate measure was that there were a series of safeguards in the original version that ensured it was only obviously abusive transactions that were affected. The removal of those safeguards renders the scheme unlawful."

I get your point it would be illogical for the PL to now try to keep the reduced standard when ditching the other 2024 amendments, but just supposing they did: if they chose to retain one of the features that made the APT rules unlawful but not the others, how would a future tribunal view that?

It's an interesting question...

...and it saves me from having to think about why we're all doomed when Amorim arrives.
 
Chris in London said:
Good point.

I looked at the tribunal's decision as effectively being "the reason the APT rules were a proportionate measure was that there were a series of safeguards in the original version that ensured it was only obviously abusive transactions that were affected. The removal of those safeguards renders the scheme unlawful."

I get your point it would be illogical for the PL to now try to keep the reduced standard when ditching the other 2024 amendments, but just supposing they did: if they chose to retain one of the features that made the APT rules unlawful but not the others, how would a future tribunal view that?

It's an interesting question...

...and it saves me from having to think about why we're all doomed when Amorim arrives.
Click to expand...
I think City would go back to the Tribunal. I think it is a key point that it will come back
 
slbsn said:
It is arguably the key point given it was specifically recognised in the original KC advice so I think very little chance it is not coming back. NB: all of City's APT applications were under the old rules so always needed them to be "evidently in excess of FMV"View attachment 137534
Click to expand...
Is it basically good news for us???
 
jrb said:
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
Click to expand...
Is it me or is would a stricter meaning than could
 
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