Sure. I've never given any insight or explanation!Incredibly insightful.
Any legal bods care to explain to us plebs what not quite lawful means lol
Can’t wait for APT v3 if the November changes are deemed not quite lawful again ;-)
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.View attachment 146759
I assume if they say they aren’t valid. Everything is rolled back to the 2021 rules, until fit rules are drafted and agreed, which as far a I understand was our original argument.No. It means the panel must re-examine them to rule whether they are valid or not.
Round we go.
I think they originally were keen to get a verdict that APT was unlawful by object. As I said, this was rejected by the Tribunal. But they got one or two useful concessions so it has been worth it. Plus some big damage to the PL exec.So you honestly think that City are taking this action for no reason. The way you are putting the argument is that whatever the final outcome there is no benifit to City. Seems a reasonable road to go down with all the cost implications.
You're entirely correct, I am no expert in law or corporate financial matters.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.
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.
Aren’t the old rules null and void and therefore non existent until the date APT 2 comes into force? Assuming those rules are not also found to be null and void as well.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.
No. We’re just going for costs.will City bankrupt these cunts now? pardon my ignorance
I don't think the arguments on shareholder loans get City there. Won't massively hit any of the Big 6. Might theoretically give historic additional PSR losses to Everton but to what end? I doubt it takes Arsenal retrospectively over the edge on PSR. Again so to what end.APT rules that don't unfairly benefit the cartel clubs and at the same time unfairly damage City would be a plus.
Yes. Anyone that doesn't needs to explain why (aside from the optics and the PR defeat of Masters which is useful but ultimately not going to move the dial).
So if they got the concessions and damage to the PL exec, why challenge the amended rules. You seem this will be a slam dunk for the Premier League. Still think there must be an outcome that City seek, that is more profitable than the above reasons.I think they originally were keen to get a verdict that APT was unlawful by object. As I said, this was rejected by the Tribunal. But they got one or two useful concessions so it has been worth it. Plus some big damage to the PL exec.
Ah, my hero.
I don't think the arguments on shareholder loans get City there. Won't massively hit any of the Big 6. Might theoretically give historic additional PSR losses to Everton but to what end? I doubt it takes Arsenal retrospectively over the edge on PSR. Again so to what end.
After the original hearing where a governing body were deemed to have implemented rules that were illegal and unfair, you suggested the governing body could rightfully claim victory.About what. You need to spell out which bit I was wrong about.
Think City want the shareholder loans to be retrospective but I don't have the pleadings so have to wait for the decisions.So if they got the concessions and damage to the PL exec, why challenge the amended rules. You seem this will be a slam dunk for the Premier League. Still think there must be an outcome that City seek, that is more profitable than the above reasons.
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.
What does " not quite lawful" mean.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.