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

ArtetaTechnicalArea said:
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?
Click to expand...
If you and I start a club with 18 others where every member that joins must murder 3 people, and all 20 of us vote in favour of this rule, it doesn’t make it a lawful endeavour.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose the question is whether it's lawful to allow a transition period to move from unlawfulness to lawfulness. Seems to me that is just prolonging the unlawfulness. But need a lawyer for that one. And the club have access to some pretty good ones :)
Click to expand...

You need more than 1 & all from the same chambers.
 
moomba said:
Am I right in saying that existing shareholder loans aren't subject to fair market value tests, as such clubs will continue to get the benefit of them for years until the loan is repaid?

If so, clubs that don't have existing shareholders loans at discounted rates will continue to operate at a disadvantage against those clubs that do.
Click to expand...
I thinks that’s right. The big issue is they are not valued at the standard 8% …..would have been simple for them to make the change in the rules and apply it retroactively imo, but of course it impacts several of the red top clubs so we can’t have that can we
 
As yet we don't know why City are unhappy with the "reformed" APT rules but they clearly are. This is the latest episode in the uneasy relationship between City and the football authorities. I think City have been brought to the point where "the rules", both domestic and European, not as vehicles to ensure a more level playing field or better governance of the game, but as weapons to protect a group of favoured clubs and/or to attack other clubs, notably City. The club's patience has been exhausted by the baseless charges brought by the PL and the clearly discriminatory rules which decided not to classify owner loans as "associated" party deals, let alone "related"! So, City may well be involved in a campaign to ensure that the governing body is exactly that - an impartial governing body whose rules are lawful and the same for all clubs and whose processes are fair and not manipulated to disadvantage certain clubs. This could be the point City are making.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Personally, i think Ciry are trying to make a few points here.

1) The rules were deemed illegal and they wanted them thrown out. The PL said they weren’t and have moved to change some aspects of them to mollify the Panel while not endangering their relationships with those clubs running the cartel.

2) City were checked for some commercial deals deemed to lucrative. They don’t believe they were and don’t believe they should have to prove they’re legal, but rather someone else should have to prove they’re ILlegal. That puts the boot on the other foot and means the League is on the back foot, not City, and that City don’t have to prove every penny to every club every season.

3) City feel their historic run should warrant historic deals, yet everyone seems to believe that because City are not Liverpool, United or Arsenal that they couldn’t possibly deserve such large deals, even though they have not only been the best team in the League by a country mile for years, but are the halo club of a global football group…and the ONLY club with a serious global football group, so far.

4) If City don’t strike their deals while sitting at the apex of world football, they miss the opportunity to leverage the success to the hilt, and any charges against them that do stick might reduce or negate their ability to do so. This means current (or recent) commercial deals need to be of sufficient magnitude to weather any such storm.

5) The PL and the Red Cartel are trying whatever they can to blunt that practice.

6) The Ownership Loans have not been dealt with AT ALL, because the 14 club majority are involved up to their necks and don’t have the money, or PSR headroom, to pay the interest or pay back the loans, to level the financial playing field. It is hilarious and not a little ironic that pointers at other clubs and the lazy journalists all like to tout Mansour and his oil money, yet CITY are of the few who have NOT had their hands in the owners pockets…and we have the proof!

View attachment 145975

City want rules that are fair and do not require them to prove every penny every time, but rather have someone else prove they’re not legal. That would be an ongoing cost to City and bringing their beggar bowl to the PL every year, as opposed to the PL having to bring their legal team to City to not only say, but prove, they’re running an illegal operation!
Click to expand...
Well done CB. Covers pretty much everything.
 
slbsn said:
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).
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant when it occurred the tribunal found they unfairly blocked the deals that's all that is needed for damages to be awarded
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suspect you may be right - a new set of APT rules may not be materially different but, there’s presently much in the application of the rules that City clearly don’t like - we are unique in being subjected to delays in the approval of our sponsorships - and those delays don’t even seem to align with the rules - so maybe we are sending a message to say we won’t sit back and allow the PL to effectively frustrate our attempts to secure sponsorships and whatever rules are in place must be applied fairly and equitably. None of us know what is really going on but some of this could be related to the two sponsorship deals that have been held up - have the PL continued to block them, in which case City may feel they need to apply more pressure.
 
slbsn said:
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
Click to expand...

Are APT1 and APT2 wholly separate? Surely, if the Tribunals determination on APT1 make it clear that elements of the ‘quick fix’ that became APT2 are insufficient to make them lawful - do City need to bring another case? Surely, the PL would need to act to ensure that they have rules that comply with the law? The PL must have their own Legal Counsel who are there to ensure legal compliance- or are they being drowned out by the noise from the Red cartel.
 
nmc said:
Are APT1 and APT2 wholly separate? Surely, if the Tribunals determination on APT1 make it clear that elements of the ‘quick fix’ that became APT2 are insufficient to make them lawful - do City need to bring another case? Surely, the PL would need to act to ensure that they have rules that comply with the law? The PL must have their own Legal Counsel who are there to ensure legal compliance- or are they being drowned out by the noise from the Red cartel.
Click to expand...

The assumption is that the original tribunal won't even consider the November changes. Make sense to me.
 
Dubai Blue said:
I suspect this is probably close to the truth (i.e., it's not about the loans per se, it's about laying the grounds for possible future legal challenges). Being able to establish a documented track record of the PL repeatedly acting unlawfully will do City no harm in the long run.
Click to expand...

Just watched the OJ Simpson doc on Netflix, we’ve just done the equivalent of asking the racist cop if he’d ever been racist
 
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