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

slbsn said:
Just to be clear, whilst optically the follow on is a good win (and one explained as likely here on 14 October ), I stand by the original assessment of a slight overall win for City.

APT as a concept has not been deemed unlawful - on the contrary the PL succeeded in arguing it was necessary. APT with shareholder loans is lawful. APT as a concept is lawful. So whilst it is embarrassing for Masters, it is not clear what gains City get from being right on shareholder loans. This latest decision is a technical legal question about severance and the blue pencil test (as detailed above in my tweet in October). For the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't mean APT is finished.
Click to expand...

So you still think it's a slight win?
 
jaiguruKun said:
In addition, other clubs have claimed a significant advantage from 0% interest shareholder loans being excluded from the PSR calculation. Some of them would have failed PSR without them. I'm guessing Everton & Forest may have something to say about this.
Click to expand...
Everton would have failed by miles MORE. They won't be pushing for anything. Forest too but not by much more.
 
Paladin said:
If APT v2.0 only needed to change three distinct clauses, with all the other rules remaining untouched, should the new tribunal be much quicker, since the same panel will already have full understanding of the unchanged sections of the rules?
Click to expand...
Yes - should be a short hearing.
 
nmc said:
That tribunal clearly hasn’t looked at nor ruled on the post Nov rules - that’s why City brought a new case last week to get a ruling on the amended rules. You’d expect those amended rules to come crashing down too.
Click to expand...
The whole point of November's changes were you could 'blue pencil' change if only parts of the rules were declared illegal.
The whole lot being made null and void says the 'Blue Pencil' rule change the PL envisaged is for the birds.
 
citizen_maine said:
I don't think anyone saw this coming :-)
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know....

Vic said:
Does this explain why all the Rules are void?

The judgment says the Rules and the Amended Rules are "in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998"

Section 2 of the Act:

Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition.​

(1)Subject to section 3, agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices which—
(a)may affect trade within the United Kingdom, and
(b)have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom,
are prohibited unless they are exempt in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

(2)Subsection (1) applies, in particular, to agreements, decisions or practices which—
(a)directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b)limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;
(c)share markets or sources of supply;
(d)apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e)make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

(3)Subsection (1) applies only if the agreement, decision or practice is, or is intended to be, implemented in the United Kingdom.

(4)Any agreement or decision which is prohibited by subsection (1) is void.


So - City have shown that the Rules offend subsection 1 so the agreement is unlawful and prohibited (not just individual rules) and (subsection 4) if the agreement is prohibited it is void (the whole agreement - or the "decisions by associations of undertakings" if the Rules do not constitute an agreement).

The section means that anyone can take action against an "association" and argue that it's a competition-stopping cartel. In this case, one member of the association has done it!

Section 18 prohibits abuse of a dominant position.
Click to expand...
 
slbsn said:
Just to be clear, whilst optically the follow on is a good win (and one explained as likely here on 14 October ), I stand by the original assessment of a slight overall win for City.

APT as a concept has not been deemed unlawful - on the contrary the PL succeeded in arguing it was necessary. APT with shareholder loans is lawful. APT as a concept is lawful. So whilst it is embarrassing for Masters, it is not clear what gains City get from being right on shareholder loans. This latest decision is a technical legal question about severance and the blue pencil test (as detailed above in my tweet in October). For the avoidance of doubt, it doesn't mean APT is finished.
Click to expand...

Disregard anything to do with APT 2. That is yet to judged on.

You said that your original assessment was a slight overall win for City in regards to APT 1. Those rules have now been found to be null and void. You are either the king of under statement or read the initial judgement incorrectly.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
Disregard anything to do with APT 2. That is yet to judged on.

You said that your original assessment was a slight overall win for City in regards to APT 1. Those rules have now been found to be null and void. You are either the king of under statement or read the initial judgement incorrectly.
Click to expand...
You need to understand what this means and why I explained it was a slight win.

The rules can be put back in place in very similar form to the current rules. They have not been declared as null and void aside from the changes made in 2024 (would, could, evidently, burden of proof) and not having shareholder loans included. My point on shareholder loans is that the point doesn't seem to go anywhere. The only team that would hurt from a retrospective application is Everton. Why do we care? I've explained all this in detail.
 
nmc said:
That tribunal clearly hasn’t looked at nor ruled on the post Nov rules - that’s why City brought a new case last week to get a ruling on the amended rules. You’d expect those amended rules to come crashing down too.
Click to expand...
The November Rules were constructed on the basis that the original rules could be 'Blue Pencilled' to update the bits that were marked by the Tribuneral as bad.
The whole lot was rulled null and void today so blue pencilling is a non-starter.
In effect: "Go to Jail. Do not pass go do not collect £200"
At the very least it will take a whole season to put new rules in place (even if they just change the really bad bits). The whole lot have to be resubmitted and approved by Tribuneral if any one objects.
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
About what. You need to spell out which bit I was wrong about.
Click to expand...
You said it was a slight win. How do you define slight? For most of us laymen on here, when the rules were described as being null and void, we don't think City could have gained any bigger win. For most of us, that looks like mission accomplished and we could not have wished for a better result.
Seeing as you suggest it was only a slight win, can you please verify what a good win for City would have looked like?
 
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