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

A question for our legal friends. Aren't arbitration proceedings supposed to be confidential? Why have the PL been writing to all the PL clubs about City's challenge to the new APT rules at all?
 
A question for our legal friends. Aren't arbitration proceedings supposed to be confidential? Why have the PL been writing to all the PL clubs about City's challenge to the new APT rules at all?

Because the PL is actually owned by the 20 clubs, each having one share, so an arbitration being brought against the PL's rules is effectively being brought against the other clubs.
 
Because the PL is actually owned by the 20 clubs, each having one share, so an arbitration being brought against the PL's rules is effectively being brought against the other clubs.

Fair point. But if that was the case, then all PL clubs would be completely informed about all cases and, in my cynicism, I would suggest if they all knew, we would all know. Yet we clearly don't, so why this one case in particular?
 
Unless it’s Citeh…..

View attachment 146575
This is conflating the Rule X arbitrations (confidential) and the challenge brought to the High Court and CoA regarding the Rules X arbitrations. No judgment of the Rule X arbitration was ever made public in that case.

In terms of the APT2 case, the rules do not say the existence of arbitration is confidential as such. But the proceedings are "X.25 The proceedings of an arbitration convened under this Section X shall be confidential and shall be conducted in private."

Also, the claim is clearly a matter that is relevant to the shareholders.
 
Because the PL is actually owned by the 20 clubs, each having one share, so an arbitration being brought against the PL's rules is effectively being brought against the other clubs.
Not really correct - it is a claim vs the PL regardless of the shareholdings.
 
This is conflating the Rule X arbitrations (confidential) and the challenge brought to the High Court and CoA regarding the Rules X arbitrations. No judgment of the Rule X arbitration was ever made public in that case.

In terms of the APT2 case, the rules do not say the existence of arbitration is confidential as such. But the proceedings are "X.25 The proceedings of an arbitration convened under this Section X shall be confidential and shall be conducted in private."

Also, the claim is clearly a matter that is relevant to the shareholders.

The Leicester arbitration hasn't been leaked, which makes me think it hasn't been communicated, the 115 arbitration wasn't made public until the Courts made it so and the original APT arbitration was only leaked after the PL communicated with the clubs, with the approval of the tribunal, because they wanted contributions.

I was just wondering why this new APT arbitration was communicated to the clubs and, therefore obviously, leaked. And if it should have been ....

Maybe it's not a big deal, but when things happen outside the norm, there is normally a reason.
 
It is obviously relevant to all clubs whereas PL v City or PL v Leicester is more disciplinary related/confidential plus the fact that they are appealing Leicester has been known - perhaps they saw the appeal as policy not disciplinary related so shared it. Don't think it is that surprising to be treated differently or a big deal
 
i asked this previously and received no answer.
i'll try again...

how much money does each club annually give to the premier league body?
is it a sliding scale or divvied up equally?


i know it's not a simple matter,
but the point i'm clumsily trying to make is...

assuming this money is being used to pay for the lawyers that are fighting our legal action,
plus the enormous legal cost of the charges brought against us,
how much have we contributed towards their bills?
5%?
and if so, 5% of what amount?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top