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

[Vic]

The media client journalists are clutching at anything, shifting now from points deductions and titles stripped to now transfer bans.Even if I take my blue goggles off, we're gonna look incredibly stupid splurging over 200m with wages and agent fees,Erlings deal,new stand if we're playing Oldham next season.

Nothing to do with this thread. We can't be punished for winning THIS legal action against the PL.

 

[KS55]

As has already been pointed out the original rules have been found to be illegal by a panel of independent eminent judges. We believe the “new” rules that were rushed through are also illegal.
Cartels are also illegal, and in any other industry the Serious Fraud Office would be all over you and your red mates; the infamous photo of you all plotting over dinner would be damning enough evidence.
Simples.

It would be even better if AbuDhabi intelligence had a microphone under the table.

 

[slbsn]

That depends. If they think the new rules are unlawful, they'll want a ruling to that effect. (Do we actually know the club's reasoning for saying the new rules are unlawful, e.g. on shareholder loans, or associated party transactions?)

But they'll certainly want the damages that the panel hoped might be negotiated out of court, perhaps with aggravated damages for the PL's pretending they'd won the case.

There is no loss at all on APT 2. And questionable loss from APT 1.

There is no "aggravated damages".

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Am I being thick but what is the outrage that we are going at them again. It was proven that they tried to bring in rules that are not compliant with UK law. Instead of acknowledging that and rewriting the rules to actually comply with UK law, they didn't, so here we are. Are we the idiots or are the incompetent body trying to enforce unlawful rulings?

 

[KS55]

Play it out. Lets say City are correct and it is all null and void and needs re-writing. The new version will likely look a lot like the November version but potentially with tweaked rules on loans. What are City trying to get to on shareholder loans? Reopening historic years for Everton? Charging Everton for bigger breaches? Even if it possible for the PL (unclear under the rules), for what point? They will get full mitigation where they did something that was permitted by the rules at the time. So it all appears pointless to me on shareholder loans. Again if it simply about 24/25 (ie a season not yet assessed), again, this only affects Everton and, at a squeeze, Forest. But again they will just get mitigation in full given they couldn't possibly have known the PL rules were unlawful.

So, aside from making a point, causing trouble, what are City actually trying to get to.

City are trying to get to a point where owner loans are fully dealt with by the application of the rules ie. not just going forward.

 

[remember arthur mann]

 

[slbsn]

City are trying to get to a point where owner loans are fully dealt with by the application of the rules ie. not just going forward.

Clearly, but for what purpose. What meaningful difference does it make to historic accounts to apply, say an additional 5% cost pa to any shareholder loans. This makes very little difference aside to Everton (Brighton have tonnes of capacity) and it is not even clear if anyone could open up historic cases of PSR where no wrong doing is alleged.

 

[slbsn]

BTW APT 2 is only happening because the APT 1 tribunal doesn't have jurisdiction to assess post October 2024 changes. Ideally, the question of the November changes would have been put to APT 1/been postponed until after APT 1 gave its final determination. This was always City's position. In reality it is APT 1a not APT 2.

 

[KS55]

Clearly, but for what purpose. What meaningful difference does it make to historic accounts to apply, say an additional 5% cost pa to any shareholder loans. This makes very little difference aside to Everton (Brighton have tonnes of capacity) and it is not even clear if anyone could open up historic cases of PSR where no wrong doing is alleged.

Yes, it seems rather finickety. Rules are rules and they must be perfect.

 

[cheekybids]

Clearly, but for what purpose. What meaningful difference does it make to historic accounts to apply, say an additional 5% cost pa to any shareholder loans. This makes very little difference aside to Everton (Brighton have tonnes of capacity) and it is not even clear if anyone could open up historic cases of PSR where no wrong doing is alleged.

Maybe it allows you to raise further points that would he considered unlawful, unfair & unreasonable.

 

[Vic]

There is no loss at all on APT 2. And questionable loss from APT 1.

There is no "aggravated damages".

It's got a bit confused with City's taking new legal action.

Have I missed any full judgment by the original tribunal? In particular, in terms of remedies, in addition to giving declaratory relief, the tribunal reserved jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and/or damages (with the tribunal noting that "the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in light of our conclusions").

So is it that the tribunal has said that whether the new rules are lawful is different from the original case, so City have had to launch a fresh case? But we still wait the original panel's verdict on injunctive relief and/or damages? (Why would they give the parties a chance to negotiate if City's loss was questionable? The implication is surely that City would be entitled to some remedy.)

 

[Damanino]

imo its just a coy to put pressure on the 115 panel that is making the decision as we speak.

to make them aware in the news that PL is unlawful in whatever they do in a parallel case vs City. just making PL look bad in the legal field which many effect the panel of 115 to think accordingly on their main decisions. if they are doing illegal stuff vs City in the APT case which is proved, who knows what their real motives are in the 115 case vs City.

I dont see any crazy outcome even if these loans are checked for past few years. maybe Everton gets another 2 points deduction lol.
its legal thing to do clearly if PL is adamant on related party rules, but not something that will change anything in the past. going forward maybe yes, but that is accounted for already with recently voted changes.

 

[slbsn]

It's got a bit confused with City's taking new legal action.

Have I missed any full judgment by the original tribunal? In particular, in terms of remedies, in addition to giving declaratory relief, the tribunal reserved jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief and/or damages (with the tribunal noting that "the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in light of our conclusions").

So is it that the tribunal has said that whether the new rules are lawful is different from the original case, so City have had to launch a fresh case? But we still wait the original panel's verdict on injunctive relief and/or damages? (Why would they give the parties a chance to negotiate if City's loss was questionable? The implication is surely that City would be entitled to some remedy.)

Final determination on APT1 is rumoured to be out on Monday. City have had to launch APT2 if they want to challenge the November amendments because APT1 doesn't have jurisdiction on subsequent changes to the APT1 hearing

 

[waspish]

So sponsors are being market valued but loan are not and majority of them are interest free loans from themselves! Now if anyone has read that if they have even a tiny brain they should think hey that isn't right!

16 clubs voted for the new apt sponsor rules also clubs voted for these loans with no interest!

That's corruption from certain clubs looking you straight in face and saying fuck you!

 

[Donmcfc]

Play it out. Lets say City are correct and it is all null and void and needs re-writing. The new version will likely look a lot like the November version but potentially with tweaked rules on loans. What are City trying to get to on shareholder loans? Reopening historic years for Everton? Charging Everton for bigger breaches? Even if it possible for the PL (unclear under the rules), for what point? They will get full mitigation where they did something that was permitted by the rules at the time. So it all appears pointless to me on shareholder loans. Again if it simply about 24/25 (ie a season not yet assessed), again, this only affects Everton and, at a squeeze, Forest. But again they will just get mitigation in full given they couldn't possibly have known the PL rules were unlawful.

So, aside from making a point, causing trouble, what are City actually trying to get to.

Nothing wrong with making a point and causing trouble. Go for it.

 

[bluemoon32]

One day, hopefully anyway, we'll all be able to get back and just talk about fucking football.
Fucking hell

 

[waspish]

Clearly, but for what purpose. What meaningful difference does it make to historic accounts to apply, say an additional 5% cost pa to any shareholder loans. This makes very little difference aside to Everton (Brighton have tonnes of capacity) and it is not even clear if anyone could open up historic cases of PSR where no wrong doing is alleged.

Are sponsor and loans treated the same?

 

[Vic]

Final determination on APT1 is rumoured to be out on Monday. City have had to launch APT2 if they want to challenge the November amendments because APT1 doesn't have jurisdiction on subsequent changes to the APT1 hearing

Re the latter, it would be fun if the tribunal said:

"We might have exercised jurisdiction on the latest rules if they had been changes to the original rules, but the original rules were unlawful and therefore, as City argued and we should probably have made clear, this meant those rules were null and void from the start. Therefore it is not within our jurisdiction to consider any new rules that the PL has introduced, and we will not prejudice any new proceedings by taking any view on the lawfulness of the new rules."

 

[slbsn]

Are sponsor and loans treated the same?

Going forward, broadly, yes

 

[Stoned Rose]

Clearly, but for what purpose. What meaningful difference does it make to historic accounts to apply, say an additional 5% cost pa to any shareholder loans. This makes very little difference aside to Everton (Brighton have tonnes of capacity) and it is not even clear if anyone could open up historic cases of PSR where no wrong doing is alleged.

There will be some purpose. City aren’t doing this just to be cranks.