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

BlueAnorak said:
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.
Click to expand...
Tribuneral is a lovely Freudian slip.
 
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...


I fully appreciate you know more about the law than I do, but surely we took legal action against the rules not a "concept". As such it should be judged that way; arguing the "concept" is lawful when the rules that are an implementation of the "concept" aren't, feels a little detached.
 
HelloCity said:
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.
Click to expand...
In order:
  1. Don't know what the first one means or where I said that.
  2. It hasn't - it has seen this set of rules null and void because of 3 matters that were not severable or simply added - the concept of APT was deemed necessary and is here to stay - this was a big loss for City in the initial hearing.
  3. It isn't a huge defeat - you don't understand it. If it is a huge win, explain the tangible wins for City beyond the PR win.
  4. They could win the next APT case but again, it isn't the end of APT. The league just will vote in a lawful set of APT rules - that is the point. They will look very much like the current rules but may have some shareholder loan tweaks. How is this a major win for City? Not clear to me.
  5. I don't think we have any loss on Etihad so we have no claim for compensation. But if we do, I am not convinced we have a causation argument.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not at all on independent regulation. And who says independent regulation is good for us?
 
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...
They have to start again. At least a season and a half to get it approved. No guarantee of that and in the mean time City can claim damages...
 
slbsn said:
In order:
  1. Don't know what the first one means or where I said that.
  2. It hasn't - it has seen this set of rules null and void because of 3 matters that were not severable or simply added - the concept of APT was deemed necessary and is here to stay - this was a big loss for City in the initial hearing.
  3. It isn't a huge defeat - you don't understand it. If it is a huge win, explain the tangible wins for City beyond the PR win.
  4. They could win the next APT case but again, it isn't the end of APT. The league just will vote in a lawful set of APT rules - that is the point. They will look very much like the current rules but may have some shareholder loan tweaks. How is this a major win for City? Not clear to me.
  5. I don't think we have any loss on Etihad so we have no claim for compensation. But if we do, I am not convinced we have a causation argument.
Click to expand...
APT rules that don't unfairly benefit the cartel clubs and at the same time unfairly damage City would be a plus.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’m now confused. What was the point of us challenging the rules if APT2 will breeze through with the amendments? Seems a waste of money and time unless there’s more to it that I’m missing.
 
Here's a thing - how about applying fair value rules to all sponsorships and loans.
So many Yank owners get great deals for their PL clubs from companies that sponsor US franchises also owned by them.
The Liverpool kit deal for example.
Damn there's the problem with that idea it affects everyone not just City & Newcastle.
Ah well back to the drawing board..
 
EricBrooksGhost said:
I fully appreciate you know more about the law than I do, but surely we took legal action against the rules not a "concept". As such it should be judged that way; arguing the "concept" is lawful when the rules that are an implementation of the "concept" aren't, feels a little detached.
Click to expand...
We can do this all night but I fear I am arguing with people who haven't even read the decisions (partial and final). City failed to argue APT were an object restriction (ie as a concept) and unlawful in their entirety. So they then had to win on points of detail (ie specific rules or the lack of) - and did. The 3 areas of success did not override the overall confirmation that APT as a concept was ok. This is why I say it was partial victory.1739570938053.png
 
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