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

calumdown said:
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?
Click to expand...

I assume the PL deducts its costs from the amount it distributes to the clubs, so there is no contribution back from clubs to PL?
 
calumdown said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don't think it works that way. The PL get the money and distribute it to each club after deducting expenses
 
halfcenturyup said:
I assume the PL deducts its costs from the amount it distributes to the clubs, so there is no contribution back from clubs to PL?
Click to expand...

citizen_maine said:
I don't think it works that way. The PL get the money and distribute it to each club after deducting expenses
Click to expand...

ahh, right.

so the clubs don't give money to the league,
it's the other way round?

god, i'm thick :)
 
citizen_maine said:
I don't think it works that way. The PL get the money and distribute it to each club after deducting expenses
Click to expand...

So the more legal action we bring, the higher the expenses and the less money each other club gets to spend?

I'm liking this, it'd be so funny if a certain few clubs failed psr due to receiving less than they expected...
 
jrb said:
Ha!

Big, bad, City are stopping United from spending.

It's gone full 360, where clubs can't spend money because of City. Yet City were constantly accused of spending money.

It is the Daily Mail/Fail/United.

NIGHTMARE FOR MANCHESTER UNITED.

View attachment 146615
Click to expand...
we should put low bids in for their top players (if they got any) like they did year after year
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure why the APT cases prevent them implementing a new PSR system. Must be missing something, anyone else any ideas?

Times piece here btw: https://archive.ph/XBIOn
Click to expand...
The Times piece does say:

The Premier League has also appointed the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Gary Hickinbottom KC as its new chairman of its judicial panel, replacing Murray Rosen KC. Hickinbottom has also filled the same role for the Lawn Tennis Association and British Wrestling.


 
halfcenturyup said:
I'm pretty sure the club isn't in this for damages. What I am not clear on, though, is what is in it for the club (apart from approval of the Etihad deal obviously). I still think we are missing a big part of the club's strategy just because so little information is in the public domain ....
Click to expand...
I could be miles out but this is my guess:

Obviously, only the very higher echelons at CFG will know their motives but, from the outside looking in, we can look at what their actions have achieved and how they reacted.

They have shown up the current PL management for what they are.That is to say, insufferable, incompetent and (either routinely or maliciously) capable of acting unfairly, unreasonably and unlawfully.

There has been precious little in City's actions for the last God knows how long to suggest that CFG care a whole heap about public perception. Therefore, we can fairly confidently rule PR out as a primary motive in exposing what's been going on.

What we did see after the APT case was a new swagger in City's stride vis-a-vis upcoming PL shareholder meetings and intent to obstruct by all means necessary rules they didn't approve. City, if you like, proving they can be big dogs in the boardroom as well as on the pitch.

My guess is they are happy, at the very least, to continue to thwart the PL hierarchy/ Red Cartel until those in power will be happier to have City "inside the tent pissing out", as the saying goes.
If that never happens, then (and this is more likely) with one eye on the proposed regulator, they will have positioned themselves in a place where they will be consulted regarding that restructuring by any incoming overseer. Whoever takes over will want an end to this constant bickering and legislation and they'll need to keep City happy to achieve that.

TL/DR: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Chatgpt wrong again shocker ;)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure why the APT cases prevent them implementing a new PSR system. Must be missing something, anyone else any ideas?

Times piece here btw: https://archive.ph/XBIOn
Click to expand...
It really depends how the panel draw the line on what can be corrected and what can't (ie what is simply null and void). The blue pencil test is meant to save a contract or clauses. APT is undoubtedly an intrinsic part of the PSR scheme as well as the rest of rule E on finance. So presumably, the concern is that, at its extreme a Tribunal may declare the whole of Rule E null and void since 2021. I doubt it but clearly if it did that would create some issues. Hence, as City suggested in November, the PL clubs now want to wait and not rush to make changes whilst awaiting Tribunal decisions.
 
slbsn said:
It really depends how the panel draw the line on what can be corrected and what can't (ie what is simply null and void). The blue pencil test is meant to save a contract or clauses. APT is undoubtedly an intrinsic part of the PSR scheme as well as the rest of rule E on finance. So presumably, the concern is that, at its extreme a Tribunal may declare the whole of Rule E null and void since 2021. I doubt it but clearly if it did that would create some issues. Hence, as City suggested in November, the PL clubs now want to wait and not rush to make changes whilst awaiting Tribunal decisions.
Click to expand...

I had always thought that was a possibility, as you know, but surely, if the section E rules were declared null and void for the treatment of shareholder loans, it would be since inception not since 2021?

And, if the PL really have done a 180 and decided to wait for the APT outcomes before changing PSR any more, there must have been a really significant development. It would be such a climbdown. I can't help thinking they know which way the APT tribunal's second hearing has gone, either because the award has been issued and they are keeping it quiet (although I still think it's too early for that) or just from the nature of the discussions.

Anyway, we will see soon enough.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure why the APT cases prevent them implementing a new PSR system. Must be missing something, anyone else any ideas?

Times piece here btw: https://archive.ph/XBIOn
Click to expand...

Makes no sense unless it’s due to the confidence of the legality of these rules they keep introducing.

The article made me laugh that the Rags have been held back by PSR. If you’ve spent more than any club it’s not PSR that’s held you back, it’s shite recruiting.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I had always thought that was a possibility, as you know, but surely, if the section E rules were declared null and void for the treatment of shareholder loans, it would be since inception not since 2021?

And, if the PL really have done a 180 and decided to wait for the APT outcomes before changing PSR any more, there must have been a really significant development. It would be such a climbdown. I can't help thinking they know which way the APT tribunal's second hearing has gone, either because the award has been issued and they are keeping it quiet (although I still think it's too early for that) or just from the nature of the discussions.

Anyway, we will see soon enough.
Click to expand...
No I don't see why it would be since inception - the only thing that Tribunal was asked was in respect of APT rules and Amended APT Rules - all from 2021. But nobody knows which was City's original point on why everyone should wait.

I don't think this means there has been a really significant development. I suspect it was convenient and that they aren't quite reading for SCR - has a sample of the drafting even been tabled? Who knows.
 
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