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

slbsn said:
They have proved a threat. We had to settle with UEFA in 2014 because of this very issue.
Click to expand...
Last question from me tonight. You say that APTs FMV are still in place under the new rules. But if the previous rules have been deemed null and void, surely there where no rules in place when City wanted to do the new Etihad deal. Thank you for your patience.
 
johnny crossan said:
So Cyrano got it wrong - no probs for the PL then?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying he got it wrong. I'm saying I don't value his views at all as a serious football opinion former. As I said, he probably read a few articles before penning the consensus opinion.

It's been said on this forum that the finest analysts on City's legal battles are to be found on Bluemoon. We shouldn't disrespect those same people now that they are advising caution.
 
Mr Grumpy said:
I find the knee jerk, unread, criticisms of Stefans considered comments to be bizarre.

Shoot the fucking messenger eh?

If you are going to disagree, at least try to put up a reasoned argument.
Click to expand...
When he is coming out with comments that the Premier League had significant and big wins, while City only had a slight win. Yet, the rules have been judged to be null and void, is it not obvious that some people are questioning him?
He may have far more knowledge and expertise than all of us. But that does not mean that he should not be questioned on his comments. It's not in his personal interests to say "I got that wrong". So, obviously people are a little skeptical this evening, considering the news that has emerged today.
Stefan may well be proved to be right in his assessment and you would hope so considering he is the expert in these topics. But, to the laymen on here (myself included) his assessment does not sit quite right this evening.
 
Poor Jonathan Liew- I bookmarked this:

www.theguardian.com

Manchester City obsess over projection while neglecting fundamentals | Jonathan Liew

The champions are increasingly concerned with how things are portrayed and the basics appear to be an afterthought
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

“What it was not, however, was a shock. At least, not for anyone more than vaguely acquainted with City’s football over recent weeks. A fifth consecutive loss – six if you count the Premier League vote on associated party transactions on Friday – is of less significance than the recurring manner of those losses: City being undone not by fluke or happenstance but by teams who were simply braver than them, stronger, more imaginative, more united.”

Get fucked you bitter ****. Hope you’re at the game tomorrow
 
GLBlue1995 said:
The litigator in me focused on one phrase in your response: "If constructed correctly"

I get that the initial ruling didn't strike down APT rules as illegal per se. But with the ruling that the pre-2024 rules were null and void, isn't there the possibility that they either (1) can't be constructed correctly; or (2) that to be constructed correctly, they'll be so watered down as to be largely irrelevant? Im my experience as a litigator and a former US Court of Appeals clerk, courts/tribunals often avoid making sweeping decisions when a more surgical, more easily supportable and less controversial decision gets them to the same point. Is there any chance that's happening here?

I'm not an expert on these rulings -- I've not spent the time with them you have, so hopefully this is taken as the good faith question it is.

Thanks for all your hard work and patience educating us all about these rulings.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see City's pleading for APT2. But it appears to me, APT1 effectively said the drafting of the original December 2021 APT rules was fine providing the shareholder loans were added treated equally to other APTs. It is hard to see how the PL can argue that the shareholder rules shouldn't apply retrospectively (as they have in the Nov 24 rules) so I wouldn't be shocked if they are told to change that. But that all seems quite easily achieved and not very watered down at all - actually more stringent. There are some changes between 2021 and November 2024 which City may dispute but those seem quite easy to remove if the Panel deems them unlawful.
 
johnnytapia said:
Poor Jonathan Liew- I bookmarked this:

www.theguardian.com

Manchester City obsess over projection while neglecting fundamentals | Jonathan Liew

The champions are increasingly concerned with how things are portrayed and the basics appear to be an afterthought
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

“What it was not, however, was a shock. At least, not for anyone more than vaguely acquainted with City’s football over recent weeks. A fifth consecutive loss – six if you count the Premier League vote on associated party transactions on Friday – is of less significance than the recurring manner of those losses: City being undone not by fluke or happenstance but by teams who were simply braver than them, stronger, more imaginative, more united.”

Get fucked you bitter ****. Hope you’re at the game tomorrow
Click to expand...
Needs to drive for Uber eats. He can't speak English.
 
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...
The cunts don’t know what they’re doing is the simple answer.
 
This was tremendous, seismic news, right up until the point that it wasn't.
 
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...

So basically (Red Cartel Chat) APT 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1 etc will all be defeated in the courts/ tribunals but we'll eventually get to a version that will stick around???
 
You can read the ruling if you like in full from the link in the Premier League statement.

I wouldn't bother. That's City's lawyers job.

Point 45 though is relevant to Stefan's partial victory verdict...

45. Of course, whether or not the Club will benefit from our conclusion in this Partial Final Award that the APT Rules and Amended APT Rules are void because severance of the shareholder loan exclusion is not possible will depend upon whether the Club succeeds in its contention (to be advanced in the further arbitration commenced on 20 January 2025) that the November 2024 Amended APT Rules are also void

It's a win in my book in the sense that the APT case is still live. And we made the PL look incompetent. City's guidance to the PL clubs regarding the significance of the original APT hearing was validated.
 
Academica said:
Last question from me tonight. You say that APTs FMV are still in place under the new rules. But if the previous rules have been deemed null and void, surely there where no rules in place when City wanted to do the new Etihad deal. Thank you for your patience.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone knows what the answer is to this and to the extent that City can prove they permantently lost the opportunity and couldn't mitigate that loss by other or later sales AND it was caused by the faulty APT rules, they may be able to construct a claim. But I don't think that will be the case. City have definitely has at least 24/25 approved under the rules as required because they are on the kit this season.
 
gh_mcfc said:
It means no one is fucked as the rules are unlawful- except the PL who potentially may have to fork out compensation
Click to expand...
The money the PL will have to fork out will come from the member clubs. So I can imagine there will be further discontent in the boardrooms around the country.
 
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...
It seems like a pretty tangible win to me.
 
Academica said:
Last question from me tonight. You say that APTs FMV are still in place under the new rules. But if the previous rules have been deemed null and void, surely there where no rules in place when City wanted to do the new Etihad deal. Thank you for your patience.
Click to expand...
No, the rules were in place, but they shouldn't have been as they were illegal and unenforcable. As such any damage caused to any of the club's business by these rules can (probably) be claimed back from the Premier League in compensation
 
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