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

vincent said:
Didn’t you say on talksport that it was very unlikely city would succeed when city first took legal action?
Click to expand...
Yes. Winning these sort of cases is always unlikely which is why City focussed on shareholder loans despite having voted for them. And of course, as I explained, I was basing that whole view purely on one article and without seeing the pleaded case. The article didn't mention shareholder loans IIRC.
 
slbsn said:
Not convinced we've suffered any loss right now on Etihad - I think the issue was later years and we may still get that approved. On the FADB it is more possible but seems unlikely we just accepted it and didn't sell the collateral to someone else. So unlikely to be a huge claim.

And then is the question of causation simply due to the rules being void for unrelated matters to the rejection. Feels difficult.
Click to expand...
Slander and reputational damage to the brand and football club through obvious corruption of the PL and red cartel ? That is the big issue here !
 
The way I understand it the APT rules upto Nov 2024 have been declared illegal and therefore null and void.
The amended rules from Nov 2024 are, according to masters, in place and still in force.
However, city have also started legal action claiming these are also unlawful.
Is this correct?
 
Nightmare Walking said:
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?
Click to expand...
That is because, with respect, you don't understand what the decision said. Whilst I think the PL have made a mess of handling the situation, they are broadly right that they can quite easily get to a set of rules on APT that will be lawful. There is a chance the November rules are not quite lawful given the lack of retrospective action on shareholder loans but I can't see where that takes City either way.

If you think this means the end of APT, I'm afraid I completely disagree.
 
slbsn said:
Yes. Winning these sort of cases is always unlikely which is why City focussed on shareholder loans despite having voted for them. And of course, as I explained, I was basing that whole view purely on one article and without seeing the pleaded case. The article didn't mention shareholder loans IIRC.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you're not a little more upbeat at this turn of events Stefan - just imagine if the verdict was reversed and the headlines then.
 
johnny crossan said:
I'm surprised you're not a little more upbeat at this turn of events Stefan - just imagine if the verdict was reversed and the headlines then.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly upbeat. It is a top PR win and awful optics for Masters. But I am being asked about tangible wins for City. Those haven't changed at all since the initial decision. That is my view. I said before anyone (on 14 October) that this further determination on blue pencil was likely to go with City - but to what end? That is not clear to me at this stage.
 
slbsn said:
About what. You need to spell out which bit I was wrong about.
Click to expand...

City were never challenging the concept of an APT system but the lawfulness of the system which had been implemented.

That challenge has seen the entirety of the APT rules declared null and void, something which you didn’t think would happen.

This is a huge defeat for the PL and a huge win for City - not just in terms of APT but because it has now been shown that the PL and its members can’t just make up rules which go against the law of the land.

I fully expect City to win the next APT case and to also receive compensation as relates to the previously submitted Etihad deal.
 
slbsn said:
Yes. Winning these sort of cases is always unlikely which is why City focussed on shareholder loans despite having voted for them. And of course, as I explained, I was basing that whole view purely on one article and without seeing the pleaded case. The article didn't mention shareholder loans IIRC.
Click to expand...
It's a big win if it finishes off Richard Masters. He has made a fool of himself in the court of public opinion. It will hasten the onset of independent regulation.
 
lonestay said:
accepted they voted against the Prem , but they could have joined us front and centre to really drive it home to the Prem, instead of just being on the sidelines hoping to gain from someone elses work.
Click to expand...
It only needs one club to challenge, and I'm sure Newcastle would have gone for it, but we're elbowed out of the way by City saying "watch ya dad" as we have already been there and done it.
 
slbsn said:
I'm perfectly upbeat. It is a top PR win and awful optics for Masters. But I am being asked about tangible wins for City. Those haven't changed at all since the initial decision. That is my view. I said before anyone (on 14 October) that this further determination on blue pencil was likely to go with City - but to what end? That is not clear to me at this stage.
Click to expand...
well we should recover most (if not all of out legal costs?
 
slbsn said:
I'm perfectly upbeat. It is a top PR win and awful optics for Masters. But I am being asked about tangible wins for City. Those haven't changed at all since the initial decision. That is my view. I said before anyone (on 14 October) that this further determination on blue pencil was likely to go with City - but to what end? That is not clear to me at this stage.
Click to expand...
If there are no tangible wins I ask myself why would City prosecute this action? Clearly they judged they would win but just a transient PR victory? My thinking is that this is another step down a road to a bigger prize.
 
Toranaga sama said:
I am objectively trying to understand their reasoning behind the rush. Surely they could have waited a few more months for the final verdict. Why the rush though...? And what they actually wanted to achieve, knowing full well in advance that they might have egg on the face whenever the tribunal rules in the final verdict...? What was their motive...?

Anyone has a clue? I have absolutely no clue.
Click to expand...

I think they didn’t want a window where there were no rules in the place. But I might be giving them too much credit.
 
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