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

[Stoned Rose]

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.

There is absolutely no such link.

 

[Vienna_70]

From what I understand in the article on the BBC, the Premier League is saying that low or zero interest loans from shareholders will be retrospectively exempt.

That is a fucking disgrace, if true.

More shithousery from the cartel clubs.

 

[discopop]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

Shut up you twat

 

[slbsn]

From what I understand in the article on the BBC, the Premier League is saying that low or zero interest loans from shareholders will be retrospective exempt.

That is a fucking disgrace, if true.

More shithousery from the cartel clubs.

Doesn't affect United or Spurs, barely affects Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

 

[cheekybids]

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

Never miss an opportunity to point out corruption.

 

[slbsn]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

When the rules voted through are lawful.

Even if 20 voted on rules, it doesn't make them lawful.

And it is "wrong"

 

[Shirley]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

It ends going the rong way…

 

[chaddblue]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

Yeah City should just stand by and allow illegal rules to hold them back and allow certain other clubs to prosper

 

[BerkshireBlue]

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

There is no "aggravated damages".

Questionable? The PL held up city's accounts, sponsors, financial and sporting progress for a year. I'd say it's nailed on for damages

 

[ManCitizens.]

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.

I’d imagine City want an independent regulator so the clubs can’t effectively govern themselves. Maybe each battle is seen as a step towards this.

 

[Silva2021]

A simple example on some of these is we know clubs vote, 99% what works best for us.

Now say a rule was proposed that said if the team had City in the name they got a 10 point deduction, forgetting for one minute the obvious unfairness to the layman and kickback, it could theoretically get the votes (you would certainly have enough teams who would be happy with that if it was to happen).

So these rules etc are voted in a similar but none extreme way. Does it benefit us, I will vote this way.

The public cannot see unfairness and as such we down to the legal system.

You do have to feel the Etihad deal is to play here somewhere as well as showing PL do not mess with ourselves. This will have future benefits knowing that we litigate and don’t just accept.

 

[slbsn]

Questionable? The PL held up city's accounts, sponsors, financial and sporting progress for a year. I'd say it's nailed on for damages

Except they didn't. The key considered deal was from 24/25 and we must have had a deal signed off in some form for 24/25 because Etihad is still on the shirts. The key reasons for rejection were not found to be unlawful - in fact the process generally was found to be fine aside from City being able to make further reps. The loss would be pretty small (if anything).

 

[slbsn]

I’d imagine City want an independent regulator so the clubs can’t effectively govern themselves. Maybe each battle is seen as a step towards this.

No chance

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Any relevance in the timing? I am surprised the club didn't either i) do this immediately in November, or ii) wait for the final judgment on the first arbitration.

Is it just due to the tribunal making it known last month that they wouldn't consider the November amendments in their final judgment? In which case, this was the first "opportunity" to raise the action?

I suppose, for all we know, the club may have raised this with the tribunal in November but it took till January for them to respond?

 

[Gordyola]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

The league would function if the law makers and administrators were independent from the members Unfortunately there is a cartel of clubs based around the US owners who have undue influence on their puppet CEO and therefore they frame rules, regulations and procedures to suit themselves and against the others It doesn't matter if a rule is passed by a "super majority" if that rule can be proven to be illegal in a court of law.

IMHO the PL needs to be restructured to be independent of the members acting in the best interest of all

 

[give it to gordon]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

It's simple the laws have to be within the laws of the land. All 20 clubs could vote to bring back hanging but it won't be legal in this country.

 

[CC1]

It a 20 team league. The rules have been voted for by a super majority of 14. I don't understand how the league can function if every club took it upon themselves to sue if they were one of the 6 whose vote went the rong way.

Where does it end?

It ends if & when the rules being considered are LEGAL

 

[WRicko]

I suspect rival fans think or hope this is us trying to crash the system so that we don’t get done in the 115 my view is why would we take this action if we are about to get relegated ?

We have won the first APT case. Could get a decent settlement plus new deals approved. We have just had a massive January. Could rescue our season. Could get a good outcome at the 115 case could win this case. I am sure we can then go into the summer in a strong position and continue the rebuild whilst Liverpool have their own problems. The club World Cup will be another great opportunity.

Then there is all the stuff off the field stadium etc NBA ?

I hope after a blip of a season we push home our advantages.

 

[Academica]

Except they didn't. The key considered deal was from 24/25 and we must have had a deal signed off in some form for 24/25 because Etihad is still on the shirts. The key reasons for rejection were not found to be unlawful - in fact the process generally was found to be fine aside from City being able to make further reps. The loss would be pretty small (if anything).

So you think that City and thier legal team are just pissing about, for no apparent reason. You may know a lot, but maybe not everything. You have given your opinion (much appreciated as always) but the club obviously think differently.

 

[Marvin.]

The league would function if the law makers and administrators were independent from the members Unfortunately there is a cartel of clubs based around the US owners who have undue influence on their puppet CEO and therefore they frame rules, regulations and procedures to suit themselves and against the others It doesn't matter if a rule is passed by a "super majority" if that rule can be proven to be illegal in a court of law.

IMHO the PL needs to be restructured to be independent of the members acting in the best interest of all

The role of a cartel being demonstrated in the planning of the abortive ESL. The founding clubs were widely condemned but one suspects Man Utd, and Liverpool were ring-leaders in the plot. Der Spiegel, or the English equivalents, never bothered to explore this. It didn't suit their agenda of bashing the Emirati.