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

slbsn said:
1. No. The PL position is that the November fixed the unlawfulness and, in effect, should be seen as a total re-write and are therefore in place. APT 2 will have to go ahead if that is their position.
2. No. I don't think he is.
Click to expand...
But the original deals were enforced under unlawful rules. If ATP2 stands its onlt from November. Anything before that is void hence deals should have been approved. If ATP2 stands its a clean slate going forwards. Levels the playing firld re loans. Clubs will be after compo for pre November
 
slbsn said:
PR wise perhaps but little beyond that at this stage. Even the final award says City don't yet necessarily have the benefit of the decision today due to APT 2.
Click to expand...

I know you're getting bombarded, so apologies for adding another to the pile.

We don't know what else is going on behind closed doors. Is there not the possibility that City are being a bit of a stick in the mud on this for some more long-term purpose?

For example, if the other charges case comes out negatively for the Premier League, could it be that this helps strengthen a much more serious claim down the line of a targeted campaign and tortious interference specifically against us that undermines the League's position as a neutral body?

One case can look like an oversight, but a body of cases tells more of a story.
 
slbsn said:
I mean they will need to show causation and it is not clear if that means to the offending clauses causing the unlawfulness or just by virtue of the rules being unlawful. But as I said, loss remains the question. It is hard to see why the deal doesn't remain on the table so if City believe today means there is no APT in place (the PL disagree) and City enter into the deal, then they have no loss anyway.
Click to expand...
You seem to be getting confused. The fact is that the APT rules did not exist prior to November 2024 except as a concept. Therefore if any clubs income has been reduced by the PL using APT rules as a reason then the loss is clear and obvious.

Going forward we don’t know until the IC rules but it’s clear that the rules up until November 2024 were void
 
nmc said:
Love the clutching at straws comment - the Tribunal didn’t rule the new rules illegal - well they weren’t in force then! Are the PL getting desperate?
Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks they are a competent organisation who either follow legal advice or have competent lawyers are the ones clutching at straws.

I believe they jumped the gun with the 115 & we will be cleared of the none cooperation also.
 
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 refer my learned friends to my explanation posted last October of why I thought City were claiming the rules were null and void - because the tribunal said the rules were unlawful (and therefore prohibited under the Competition Act and therefore void).

What I can't yet get my head round (and I'm not going to try tonight) is why the Tribunal didn't seem then to consider whether the unfair bits could be changed to make the rules lawful. Now they say "The effect of the declarations issued by the Tribunal was not an issue at the June Hearing and so the first Partial Final Award did not deal with it". In other words, neither party asked, "Does this mean all the rules are void?" so they didn't address it. Thus City came away saying it means the rules are void and the PL saying "No it doesn't". Frankly, it seems bizarre that the panel had left any doubt whether severance of the offending bits was possible, as City had sought a declaration that the rules (not bits of them) were unlawful and the Tribunal said the rules (not bits of them) were unlawful.
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
I think tangible is the right word. Soft PR wins may make fans feel good but they have as little impact as PR wins against us.
Click to expand...
If it feels good to City fans then it cannot be said to be intangible, unless you are suggesting those feelings are imaginary.

Amorphous would have been a far better word to deploy.

Not arguing with your analysis on APT, just your choice of that particular word! Also don’t think there will be an associated claim for damages from the club, for lots of reasons.
 
chesterguy said:
You seem to be getting confused. The fact is that the APT rules did not exist prior to November 2024 except as a concept. Therefore if any clubs income has been reduced by the PL using APT rules as a reason then the loss is clear and obvious.

Going forward we don’t know until the IC rules but it’s clear that the rules up until November 2024 were void
Click to expand...
What is City's loss from the rejection of the 10 year Etihad deal in April 2024?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
If it feels good to City fans then it cannot be said to be intangible, unless you are suggesting those feelings are imaginary.

Amorphous would have been a far better word to deploy.

Not arguing with your analysis on APT, just your choice of that particular word! Also don’t think there will be an associated claim for damages from the club, for lots of reasons.
Click to expand...
I think the emotional feeling referred to is the definition of an intangible. But your language range is far beyond my business comms.
 
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...
Is there any point in worrying about retrospective stuff if its all unlawful up to November (assuming ATP2 stands). Just a clean slate from then loans , deal under the same FMV assessment. I win for city levelling the playing field . Only issue is if any clubs can claim losses up to NoV 24 ?
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I know you're getting bombarded, so apologies for adding another to the pile.

We don't know what else is going on behind closed doors. Is there not the possibility that City are being a bit of a stick in the mud on this for some more long-term purpose?

For example, if the other charges case comes out negatively for the Premier League, could it be that this helps strengthen a much more serious claim down the line of a targeted campaign and tortious interference specifically against us that undermines the League's position as a neutral body?

One case can look like an oversight, but a body of cases tells more of a story.
Click to expand...
Maybe but not in my opinion
 
Academica said:
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.
Click to expand...
I posted a while ago (I think as a reply to one of Stefan’s posts) that there’ll be more to this than we currently know or can see.

There’s no way this has been purely about PR or to just be cunts for the sake of it imo.
 
gh_mcfc said:
Is there any point in worrying about retrospective stuff if its all unlawful up to November (assuming ATP2 stands). Just a clean slate from then loans , deal under the same FMV assessment. I win for city levelling the playing field . Only issue is if any clubs can claim losses up to NoV 24 ?
Click to expand...
yes because you need the historic numbers to feed into the post November assessments.
 
Stoned Rose said:
I posted a while ago (I think as a reply to one of Stefan’s posts) that there’ll be more to this than we currently know or can see.

There’s no way this has been purely about PR or to just be cunts for the sake of it imo.
Click to expand...
I'm sure City's primary aim was defeating APT. But as I have said, the PL succeeded on that point.
 
slbsn said:
Not going to make me any more popular, but the decision doesn't say anything of the sort. The "sleight of hand" referred to was the PL's counsel arguing that the PL rules weren't a contract but were an instrument to try and get away from the blue pencil test. A highly technical legal argument and nothing at all to do with anything presentational to the outside world. In short, it was just a shit argument.

View attachment 146767
Click to expand...
That's true, but in the grand scheme of things where the PL designed rules to be unfair ("by object"), I'm not sure any court saying counsel was using "sleight of hand" was just being light-hearted about the intention to deceive.
 
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