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

The 3 points gained in the first tribunal seemed to suggest the etihad and first bank deals could or should be allowed. The leagues pathetic attempt to deny such a lucrative well earned contact is petty considering the clubs unprecedented success. It had one aim, stop commercial monies going into the club from any business based in the UAE.

The shareholder loans is seemingly a Trojan horse as we had no problem with those loans when first introduced. Very good work from the legal team to show bias and favouritism towards some clubs(arsehole) while others have been treated like scum.

Now, we are somewhat in the dark going forward. I don’t believe city want the rules thrown out unless they impact our commercial profitability. Maybe we are making a point towards the red tops that we will fight any new set of rules and challenge their legality in uk courts. The league can’t keep getting a kicking unless the plan all along is to join a super league or maybe they just don’t care about self destruction?

It’s probably more likely that the rules put in place were weak, cobbled together and badly worded thus easily taken apart as we have seen with Leicester. Incompetence and quacking like a duck at the behest of the illustrious historically organic class of 92 sky clubs.

The rags are now going to go the youth route as apparently they can’t buy without selling. Now that sounds great on first glance but maybe it’s a way to buy time and play only youth, a reset of sorts.

A win is a win no matter how we get it. Apt 1 has been a success. The next result will be the 115/130 then onto Apt 2 which again seems to be null and void unless those amendments have passed this blue city test.

All this could have been avoided if the clubs behind masters had played a straight hand. Thankfully we have world class operators at the club. They continue to deliver when it matters.

So forget who is right and wrong tonight on the finer points and be happy city have given the league a very public bloody nose.

The next blow will be a knockout.

Dont be attacking each other over legal rules that no fucker has any interest in. Especially when said rules are unlawful, unfounded and unworkable.

Are we #more than a club yet?

-:)
 
Last edited:

This was mentioned earlier when the news broke for anyone that wants to watch it.
I am aware it’s Talkshite : )
 
levets said:
‘The lawyer’ see it as a victory for City… and seem to suggest the rules will revert to the previous RPT rules.


View attachment 146780
Click to expand...

Well yes, APT is void, so the RPT rules are back through 2024 (or 2025 if APT2 is successful, as is likely). As they should be, speaking as an accountant.

But the PL will presumably make new APT rules that will be lawful, effective from when they are approved.

Which is why I say, if I was Newcastle, I would be signing lots of deal right now.
 
kaldoon-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well yes, APT is void, so the RPT rules are back through 2024 (or 2025 if APT2 is successful, as is likely). As they should be, speaking as an accountant.

But the PL will presumably make new APT rules that will be lawful, effective from when they are approved.

Which is why I say, if I was Newcastle, I would be signing lots of deal right now.
Click to expand...
So should we…
 
Coatigan said:
That's the logical take here. And if indeed it was just parts needing changed to make the rules lawful, why would the club have challenged it again, even prior to this ruling. Sounds like they were convinced the whole lot is unlawful, including subsequent versions.
Click to expand...
The point Stefan & others are missing is one which underpins all capitalist societies... The markets set the rates.

1. We've won 6 out of the last 7 PL's.

2. We've amassed the most top flight points ever.

3. We've scored the most top flight goals in a season.

4. We're the first club to complete the domestic treble & quadruple.

5. We're only the second club to win the three major trophies in one season in English football (treble).

6. We're the first club in English football to win four top flight titles on the trot.

7. We are the current CWC Champions, & are represented at the expanded tournament in June.

Taking into account this has never been done before in the history of English football, by what metric are the PL using to gauge what level of sponsorship City should be entitled to negotiate?

The PL marked down our sponsorships, but then refused to allow us to examine the historical sponsorship data they used to determine if our deals represented fair market value.

In respect to APT 2.0, how can they show metrics valuing City's sponsorship potential, after several record breaking feats which have never been achieved before? Surely we're breaking new ground?

Yes, the PL can say there needs to be an element of APT to protect the integrity of football in terms of Newcastle rocking up with a £1bn per season sponsorship deal from the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, when the last time they won a major trophy was the 2006 Intertoto Cup, & the last time before that was the Inter Cities Fairs Cup in the 60s.

But even this is fraught with danger if ever legally challenged. Sponsorship, just like transfers are only worth what someone's willing to pay, so how does a third party reach an arbitrary figure of what they think is "fair market value"? Isn't this between the seller & the buyer?

The PL can only do this in their private members club where they make the rules. This is why part of the PL's rules states that only disputes about tribunal procedures can be argued in a court of law. All their other bullshit rules wouldn't even get to trial because they contravene British law.

This is the next logical step for APT & PSR. Neither are even close to UK Law & the PL know this, hence their mortal fear of the government introducing IREF.

If I were City & ever found guilty of FFP or PSR, I'd accept it if the UK Government made it a law which governed ALL sectors of UK industry. It could be argued that no one forced City to agree to the PL's rules, but then we could argue we had little choice but to sign up to these restrictive practices, otherwise we'd have no business & would lose access to the CL.

The cartel clubs are evidently prepared to burn down the PL, if it stops Manchester City. However, it's a legal can of fucking worms of the cartel's own making, if City & others think "Fuck this! We've had enough of only being here to make up the numbers. We also want to regularly challenge for all the top trophies"!

FFP, PSR & APT were designed to protect the hegemony of the legacy clubs. If the PL continue down this path, they'll soon pass the point where they'll be able to put the lawsuit genie back in the bottle.
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
I've explained above. This was a big win for the PL. It effectively said APT was legitimate (and necessary) if constructed correctly. The Tribunal also rejected things like this "We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any clubthat might use APTs."View attachment 146761
Click to expand...

Stefan, my opinion unlike yours is not based on law but dealing with devious cunts & finding a way through law to expose them.

Despite the ruling above City tried to expose the premier league for exposing an agenda of trying to nobble us at every stage. Surprisingly the premier league are given the benefit of the doubt. I believe City feel every time they push & every time we have new rules they are to protect certain clubs whilst limiting others.

City will keep pushing, keep exposing, keep getting small wins, damage the reputation of those out to damage ours. We expose the weakness in their rules & the weakness of their legal team & their arrogance of following legal process.

We talk about soft signals & leading up to the 115 City are showing the premier league, rules & lawyers for incompetence which makes me think did they jump the gun with the “none cooperation” when legal process was being followed.
 
arbabarshad said:
Read quite a few posts from the most active legal mind on here and it seems City's legal team is working to a different level both in terms of knowledge and expertise. Not only that, City''s legal team seems to be working to a plan rather than a win on one set of rules only. A win, any win (null and void is big) in the APT 1 and potentially APT2 are only small wins in the overall plan.

Legal mind says he does not/did not have the full information of the case as City's team does/did.
Legal mind is also guessing what City's legal teams aims are in their challenges of APT 1 and APT 2. The guesses are based on limited knowledge therefore prone to be incorrect.

Perhaps, it is right for the legal mind to enlighten supporters based on his knowledge of the legalities involved but i think specifics/judgemental comments i.e. not win, slight win could be avoided and save a lot of questions on his expertise and intentions.

Another point re Forest / Everton or compensation issue:

If Forest were deducted points, they will have gone down in premium league table which would mean less money. If any of the other clubs who had Shareholder loans but weren't taken into account for PSR calculations, and if taken into account may have ended up with a points deduction ans subsequently fallen to a position below forest, then forest would have lost out on income all as a result of unlawful/void rules. This may amount to a valid compensation claim.
Click to expand...
Nail on the head!
 
cheekybids said:
Stefan, my opinion unlike yours is not based on law but dealing with devious cunts & finding a way through law to expose them.

Despite the ruling above City tried to expose the premier league for exposing an agenda of trying to nobble us at every stage. Surprisingly the premier league are given the benefit of the doubt. I believe City feel every time they push & every time we have new rules they are to protect certain clubs whilst limiting others.

City will keep pushing, keep exposing, keep getting small wins, damage the reputation of those out to damage ours. We expose the weakness in their rules & the weakness of their legal team & their arrogance of following legal process.

We talk about soft signals & leading up to the 115 City are showing the premier league, rules & lawyers for incompetence which makes me think did they jump the gun with the “none cooperation” when legal process was being followed.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this. It all boils down to what City's objective was. I only see one. To get the Etihad deal through. I don't think the club cares about exposing the PL or damaging competition. It's a bit small minded and the owner is generally above that sort of stuff, I think.

But I also disagree that having the requirement for APT validated (or the rejection of the discrimination claim) is a big win for the PL. Having the status quo confirmed isn't a win, it just isn't a defeat. There is only one winner in this, imho.
 
More than anything, this action suggests City's thinking is not in calibration with the mainstream perceptions of the situation. It was considered a Hail Mary in some quarters at the outset, or at least trying to kick the can down the road, but has become an elephant in the room for the PL, and existential for its executives, who have been negligent in twice having been found to have failed to advise its members that it had voted for rules which were unlawful. This suggests either Richard Masters is incompetent or has an agenda. Rules are subject to English Law. If they weren't, the law could be circumvented, similar to how some businesses avoid tax by registering as charities.

AI says the Fit and Proper Person's Test is designed to protect the integrity of the league, 'to assess an individual's integrity, honesty, and financial soundness', and is seasonally reviewed. My question is, how the behaviour of the people who have so aggressively targeted City pass that test. For example, Liverpool illegally hacked City's database, but their owners passed the test. They have a record of dishonesty in sport, e.g. the MLB found their Boston Red Sox cheated on its way to the 2018 World Series.

We still don't know how City's final APT challenge will go and where it goes from here, but I'm not as convinced as others it's disparate from 115.
 
slbsn said:
I've explained above. This was a big win for the PL. It effectively said APT was legitimate (and necessary) if constructed correctly. The Tribunal also rejected things like this "We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any clubthat might use APTs."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to disagree on two points:

1) This is not a win for the PL AT ALL! They are always perfectly within their rights to create the rules and regs by which the PL conducts its business. This case was about whether this specific rule & reg was legal. It was not.

2) The PL deemed that decision limited in its scope and determined it could quickly reconstitute APT2 and get it passed to make it LOOK like the victory it was not. It remains to be seen if APT2 is legal or simply reconstituted fruit from the poisonous tree.

As for the targeting issue, I feel like that was an argument that was always going to be difficult to win unless there was specific language, either included in the reg or openly discussed, that supported such targeting. That whole section of the Hearing brought some unflattering comments to light, made the point that there were indeed words spoken, but could not prove such language was present in the regs, or the reasoning behind them. However, while we didn’t win that fight, we certainly gave them a black eye.

I’m not sure if it’s because I haven’t heard or read everything you’ve said or written on this issue, but you seem to be going out of your way to appear evenhanded, perhaps to the point of straying slightly over the line in the opposite direction…if that direction is to be in opposition to the club for whom you used to work. Forgive me if my brief survey of your viewpoint overstates that “over evenhandedness.”
 
Biggest win for the club for some considerable time and this is just a taster, the big one is to come.

What a wonderful club and execs we have.

Trust the process ;)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not sure I agree with this. It all boils down to what City's objective was. I only see one. To get the Etihad deal through. I don't think the club cares about exposing the PL or damaging competition. It's a bit small minded and the owner is generally above that sort of stuff, I think.

But I also disagree that having the requirement for APT validated (or the rejection of the discrimination claim) is a big win for the PL. Having the status quo confirmed isn't a win, it just isn't a defeat. There is only one winner in this, imho.
Click to expand...

I think we wanted to prove that the premier league has targeted City breaking anti competition rules, we failed with the “need for APT rules” but why would you give up? Why would you not keep pushing when you know that every time rules are created not just to hinder but to benefit others. You’d keep going, keep pushing, knowing that the argument for fairness becomes harder to defend.

If there’s one thing City have shown it’s that are strategic & patient.
 
As I understand it, lets say in 2023, if 1 club undertook a £100 million sponsorship under the APT route, it could be potentially reduced by FMV adjustment, where club 2 could make the same value of income/sponsorship from a shareholder loan without penalty yet they won't retrospectively be affected by the Nov 2024 rule changes as previous loans are to remain not subject to FMV?

How is that in any way fair?

Surely the fact these previous loans can be easily turned into equity is a moot point and the fact they have been in place without interest accruing affects a clubs 3 year PSR bottom line. Im not a maths expert but a £100 million loan at a commercial interest rate of 8% p.a. (If the interest alone is paid off annually) should still attract a £24 million PSR figure deficit over 3 years which would be enough to drop some clubs right in it.

Surely it would be equitable to either;
a) retrospectively apply an FMV interest rate to all shareholder loans undertaken in this period and re-calculate those clubs PSR figures where applicable. (Not a goer really as clubs near to the PSR line could quite rightly argue they would have made completely different investment decisions with different figures at the time)
b) retrospectively allow any sponsorship amount submitted by clubs in this period to which they had applied a FMV adjustment. (Would of course be subject to the sponsoring company still being in a position to offer that sponsorship and the PL would have to deal with claims for loss should they not be)

Is it possible City could be arguing (amongst several arguments) that the different treatment of shareholder loans historically is still anti-competitive and therefore still unlawful?

It's a massive can of worms.

Red cartel fan groups shitting their pants and Sky know nowts speculating City are about to sign a billion dollar a year deal with one of SM's mates companies forget that we would do no such thing as we are still under the UEFA qualifying criteria for being in European competition. Interestingly however this year Newcastle are not!

My take is, it feels like a win, weather that's a tangible win or an amorphous one i'm not particularly bothered. I do know its a nail in Masters' coffin lid.
 
Last edited:
arbabarshad said:
Read quite a few posts from the most active legal mind on here and it seems City's legal team is working to a different level both in terms of knowledge and expertise. Not only that, City''s legal team seems to be working to a plan rather than a win on one set of rules only. A win, any win (null and void is big) in the APT 1 and potentially APT2 are only small wins in the overall plan.

Legal mind says he does not/did not have the full information of the case as City's team does/did.
Legal mind is also guessing what City's legal teams aims are in their challenges of APT 1 and APT 2. The guesses are based on limited knowledge therefore prone to be incorrect.

Perhaps, it is right for the legal mind to enlighten supporters based on his knowledge of the legalities involved but i think specifics/judgemental comments i.e. not win, slight win could be avoided and save a lot of questions on his expertise and intentions.

Another point re Forest / Everton or compensation issue:

If Forest were deducted points, they will have gone down in premium league table which would mean less money. If any of the other clubs who had Shareholder loans but weren't taken into account for PSR calculations, and if taken into account may have ended up with a points deduction ans subsequently fallen to a position below forest, then forest would have lost out on income all as a result of unlawful/void rules. This may amount to a valid compensation claim.
Click to expand...

Unreasonably harsh imho. Any opinions given on here can be assessed by an individual without believing anything anyone says. Listen to all the opinions, give more weight to some than others, then make your own mind up. But don't blame the one giving their opinion. Blame yourself for not being able to analyse them.

As for competence, I have said before that these things are well above anyone's pay grade on here. We are all trying to piece together what we think may happen from what we think we know. If anyone takes an opinion as gospel, they can't then blame the person giving the opinion.

And if you are going to refer to a poster, my advice would be to have the balls to tag him into the discussion.

As for Everton and Forest, they have no compensation claim as a result of these judgments. The judgments only related to the APT rules. They may have a claim if they can (or City do) take the PL to arbitration over the impact of shareholder loans on PSR as well, but we aren't there yet.

But apart from all that, good post. Imho.
 
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