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

[Chris in London]

Sorry to piss on your parade mate, but your last paragraph there means that Rob Draper thinks you are a juvenile with extremely limited intellectual and analytical capacity.

Perhaps.

Still, Rob Draper is a ****.

 

[Chris in London]

Correct. But the question is whether the FFP / PSR rules were unlawful because shareholder loans have never been assessed under the RPT rules, if challenged. May be worth a punt by City, Forest or Everton now?

I am struggling to see a reason why they shouldn't be unlawful?

I’m struggling to understand this.

Are you saying shareholder loans are unlawful?

 

[Chris in London]

When clubs voted in November they were still in the dark as the premier league had misled members & then spent weeks lobbying (coercing) them to support the new vote.

Is this anything that a solid playmaker such as Panick could work with?

I doubt it, but then again I have no knowledge of what the PL did/said/promised/threatened to get APT 11/24 over the line, and I don’t know what City’s arguments against APT11/24 are anyway.

The only thing I am saying is that it’s a completely different fight and the arguments that worked last time probably won’t work again.

IMHO the Club knows this and is proceeding anyway, which makes me think they have something more to lay on the table. But whether that will work, who knows.

I’ve seen a lot in this thread from people who think that since we’ve beaten the PL twice the next round is a foregone conclusion.

It isn’t.

 

[cheekybids]

I doubt it, but then again I have no knowledge of what the PL did/said/promised/threatened to get APT 11/24 over the line, and I don’t know what City’s arguments against APT11/24 are anyway.

The only thing I am saying is that it’s a completely different fight and the arguments that worked last time probably won’t work again.

IMHO the Club knows this and is proceeding anyway, which makes me think they have something more to lay on the table. But whether that will work, who knows.

I’ve seen a lot in this thread from people who think that since we’ve beaten the PL twice the next round is a foregone conclusion.

It isn’t.

I agree, my thoughts are City are pushing to expose the premier league as anti competitive & Masters for corruption. City have said this what’s happening & they’ve attempted to prove this in the APT, maybe we had another go in the 115. People think we want to win & just move on but I think that changed with the 115, the humiliation of the club, attacks on Pep & the attempt to ruin the club.

After APT2 we’ll also have cases where we can sue for damages & I think we’ll try & prove it again then.

 

[Coatigan]

Far be it from me to rain on anybody’s parade.

But I’m going to.

We’ve just had a stonking victory on APT1, and the dishonest spin from the PL when the original judgment came out has been shown up for the horseshit it always was.

BUT. Winning APT1 is a very different thing to winning on APT2. This is why.

Regular readers of this thread will have come across the phrase “blue pencil” test. What this basically means is, if 95% of a contract is fine, but 5% is unlawful, can you just cross out the 5% as if with a blue pencil, and will the rest make perfect sense without - and here comes the key bit - changing anything else. If you can’t, the whole thing is unlawful.

Let me give two examples. First, the shareholder loans exemption. That was a specific add-on, so if you took that away, the rest still made sense. Second, the rule changes made it easier to prove that a transaction was above market value, so the rule changed from “another party could have paid the same amount” to “another party would have paid the same amount.” That change was ruled unlawful.

The problem is, you can’t just take out the bit that is unlawful. Take the word “would” out, and the sentence stops making sense. (Try it.) Why can’t you just go back to the old rules? Because - and this is crucial - the blue paper test only allows you to take things out. You cannot add things in, even where what remains makes no sense.

So there was always a good chance that once certain parts of the APT rules were judged illegal, the rest would follow.

Now, onto the less comfortable part. The November 24 rules are NOT going to be subject to the same blue pencil test. The November 24 rules were a fresh “start again” set of rules which were voted on and approved by the PL membership.

What we know from the October judgment is that (a) the panel - and don’t forget it will be the same one - basically accepted that it was legitimate for the PL to move away from the old related party rules to the new, wider, associated party test and (B) the APT rules as originally introduced included far more safeguards and checks and balances to ensure a fair balance was struck between sponsors who had their own reasons for wanting to pay a sum that might be seen as over the odds and others who are basically taking the piss.

What we know about the November rules is that the PL kept the bits that weren’t unlawful and replaced the bits that were.

So, on the face of it, the PL have finally got their act together. They are not promulgating rules which are obviously unlawful. They are not trying to add words in when they can only take them out. They put the new rules before the league and they got approved.

For all of these reasons, APT2 is simply not going to be a slam dunk win for City. I don’t know what further arguments the Club will make, and those arguments may succeed. What I’m pretty confident about is that APT2 will be a different fight to APT1, and just because we’ve just given them a fucking good hiding this time, it doesn’t mean we will do so next time.

Finally, I’m on page 2001 at the point of writing this and the thread is around 50 pages ahead already. Sorry if anyone else has already made these points

That all really depends, on whether it is the 5% or the 95% you we have an issue with.

In this case, it seems to be about 30%, and the PL seemingly have no choice but to change it to get the rest to stand, so that seems about as purposeful as it gets.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m struggling to understand this.

Are you saying shareholder loans are unlawful?

I am saying not taking shareholder loan interest into account at FMV in the APT assessments was unlawful, so the APT rules became unlawful.

Surely then, not taking shareholder loan interest into account at FMV in the FFP/PSR assessments may also make those rules unlawful?

May be bollocks, but makes sense to me ..... Happy to hear otherwise.

 

[Chris in London]

Good post. But I think what people are having a problem with is how you can make three or four changes to rules that don't exist?

I don’t think they did, The amendments effectively become a completely new set of rules. They have no application prior to 11/24 but thereafter they amount to a completely new set of rules.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

Far be it from me to rain on anybody’s parade.

But I’m going to.

We’ve just had a stonking victory on APT1, and the dishonest spin from the PL when the original judgment came out has been shown up for the horseshit it always was.

BUT. Winning APT1 is a very different thing to winning on APT2. This is why.

Regular readers of this thread will have come across the phrase “blue pencil” test. What this basically means is, if 95% of a contract is fine, but 5% is unlawful, can you just cross out the 5% as if with a blue pencil, and will the rest make perfect sense without - and here comes the key bit - changing anything else. If you can’t, the whole thing is unlawful.

Let me give two examples. First, the shareholder loans exemption. That was a specific add-on, so if you took that away, the rest still made sense. Second, the rule changes made it easier to prove that a transaction was above market value, so the rule changed from “another party could have paid the same amount” to “another party would have paid the same amount.” That change was ruled unlawful.

The problem is, you can’t just take out the bit that is unlawful. Take the word “would” out, and the sentence stops making sense. (Try it.) Why can’t you just go back to the old rules? Because - and this is crucial - the blue paper test only allows you to take things out. You cannot add things in, even where what remains makes no sense.

So there was always a good chance that once certain parts of the APT rules were judged illegal, the rest would follow.

Now, onto the less comfortable part. The November 24 rules are NOT going to be subject to the same blue pencil test. The November 24 rules were a fresh “start again” set of rules which were voted on and approved by the PL membership.

What we know from the October judgment is that (a) the panel - and don’t forget it will be the same one - basically accepted that it was legitimate for the PL to move away from the old related party rules to the new, wider, associated party test and (B) the APT rules as originally introduced included far more safeguards and checks and balances to ensure a fair balance was struck between sponsors who had their own reasons for wanting to pay a sum that might be seen as over the odds and others who are basically taking the piss.

What we know about the November rules is that the PL kept the bits that weren’t unlawful and replaced the bits that were.

So, on the face of it, the PL have finally got their act together. They are not promulgating rules which are obviously unlawful. They are not trying to add words in when they can only take them out. They put the new rules before the league and they got approved.

For all of these reasons, APT2 is simply not going to be a slam dunk win for City. I don’t know what further arguments the Club will make, and those arguments may succeed. What I’m pretty confident about is that APT2 will be a different fight to APT1, and just because we’ve just given them a fucking good hiding this time, it doesn’t mean we will do so next time.

Finally, I’m on page 2001 at the point of writing this and the thread is around 50 pages ahead already. Sorry if anyone else has already made these points

Good post. You’re not raining on my parade. I don’t think we are opposed to APT. Control is needed and our owners also lose big time if the Lge completely implodes. I think we’ve been waiting patiently to land punches in a lengthy fight and we’ve now done that with authority and dignity.
We had to launch APT 2 as a holding position. Maybe we don’t even pursue this ro it’s absolute end now? Who knows
What I do know for sure coz it’s personal to me is that I’ve woken up today in a great mood. The bullies have picked on the different kid in the schoolroom once to often and been left with a bloodied nose and done irreversible damage to their credibility. In the process I’m sure we have strengthened our position on sponsorship deals, covered our costs of litigation and made life that bit more difficult for many of the bullying Yank owners going forward.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I think that, whilst the dry legal analysis of the APT proceedings, by our legal brethren, is an essential contribution to our understanding, the rest of us are entitled to enjoy the Club's victories, however small they may appear to be.

In a world where the club has been battered from pillar to post by, first UEFA, and then the PL and it's complicit media for over a decade including its current attempt to land an existential knock-out blow, it's a joy to see the club landing some hefty jabs in return. Whether we have that final knock-out blow in us will be seen shortly. In view of what we've seen so far, I wouldn't back against us.

 

[Chris in London]

I am saying not taking shareholder loan interest into account at FMV in the APT assessments was unlawful, so the APT rules became unlawful.

Surely then, not taking shareholder loan interest into account at FMV in the FFP/PSR assessments may also make those rules unlawful?

May be bollocks, but makes sense to me ..... Happy to hear otherwise.

Actually no, that’s not why the entire APT regime became unlawful. If the only unlawful aspect had been the shareholder loans exemption, paradoxically the rest of the rules would have survived because the offending provisions could have been blue-pencilled. The entire APT regime only became unlawful because other changes introduced if Feb 24 eg to the burden and standard of proof couldn’t be blue-pencilled. They hade to be rewritten.

Which is what the PL did in 11/24

 

[117 M34]

Presumably that a) it wasn't a complete re-write b) shareholder loans aren't retrospective

Would anyone fail PSR if they made shareholder loans retrospectively include interest?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t think they did, The amendments effectively become a completely new set of rules. They have no application prior to 11/24 but thereafter they amount to a completely new set of rules.

:) This is why law is always such a mystery to me.

So if a contract is signed between two parties but then declared unlawful and therefore null and void, the two parties don't have to enter into a new contract, but just sign one or two amendments to make it lawful and "unvoid" it? Seems counter-intuitive to me, but I am happy to accept it if that is the case.

 

[Chris in London]

I think that, whilst the dry legal analysis of the APT proceedings, by our legal brethren, is an essential contribution to our understanding, the rest of us are entitled to enjoy the Club's victories, however small they may appear to be.

In a world where the club has been battered from pillar to post by, first UEFA, and then the PL and it's complicit media for over a decade including its current attempt to land an existential knock-out blow, it's a joy to see the club landing some hefty jabs in return. Whether we have that final knock-out blow in us will be seen shortly. In view of what we've seen so far, I wouldn't back against us.

I disagree with this. This is not a small victory, and I don’t even think it appears to be a small victory. Plus, I think everyone is entitled to enjoy this victory because if you are in a fight the alternative is a defeat.

But remember 2011 when we beat the rags in the semi final? That was brilliant, and was a reward in itself, but it would have been much less significant if we’d lost to Stoke.

Enjoy the victory, but don’t get carried away thinking we’re automatically going to win next time, too.

And that’s all the more reason for enjoying this one.

 

[M12Blue]

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.

I may be being naive but could the end city are trying to achieve and portray a fair outcome for all clubs, rather than pursuing an entirely selfish outcome. Might stop some of the finger pointing and win over some other clubs. As I said I’m probably being naive.

 

[Chris in London]

:) This is why law is always such a mystery to me.

So if a contract is signed between two parties but then declared unlawful and therefore null and void, the two parties don't have to enter into a new contract, but just sign one or two amendments to make it lawful? Seems counter-intuitive to me, but I am happy to accept it if that is the case.

No.

They do have to enter a new contract.

But when you amend a contract that’s what you are doing anyway (unless the contract says otherwise). Let me try to explain.

You and I agree a contract on 1/2/25 and the effective terms are A, B and C.

On 1/3/25 you amend the contract so that C is replaced by D.

In law, from 1/3 onwards you have a fresh contract containing terms A, B and D.

But lo! I’ve sued you because I said that C was an unlawful term, and the court agrees. On 1/4/25 I get a declaration that because C can’t be blue-pencilled, the whole contract was void. Fortunately for you, when we agreed terms A, B and D that’s not unlawful. So from 1/3 onwards the contract was entirely lawful.

 

[Blue Til Death]

Hope our fortunes don't mirror those of Iron Mike ...... he beat the overmatched opponent in the gif but never recaptured his glory years and experienced a steady decline soon thereafter

Indeed he did but most of that was of his own making, City are not that reckless or stupid..

 

[Blue Til Death]

I’m in Scotland and very broken online. What’s going on?

It’s probably a swarm of haggis clustered around the top of the nearest mast to you …

 

[SouthStandStander]

I love Martin Samual and how he puts his arguements accross.. makes sense to even idiots like myself.

"Yet set aside the legal arguments for a moment. There was another, childishly instinctive, means of calculating which way the initial verdict had gone, that many chose to ignore. The panel delivered its initial verdict on Wednesday, September 25. The Premier League finally made those findings public on Monday, October 7, a full 13 days later. By the end, City were threatening to release the report to the 19 other top-flight clubs unilaterally, so frustrated were they by the league’s delaying tactics. Now, if the league had won big, if City’s gains were merely “discrete elements” — as suggested — why the hold up? The league would have shouted their triumph from the rooftops, surely, as they did when the November amendments were passed. Instead, it was City driving to publish, City who were insistent on getting the material out. At one point, there was fear that the Premier League might even try to delay the panel’s findings beyond 2024. Put it like this: say the FA Cup final was played entirely behind closed doors: no fans, no cameras, no media. At the end, one team wanted to put the result out, and the other was happy for it to remain a secret. Who would common sense tell you had won?"

 

[M12Blue]

“Premier League chief executive Richard Masters made clubs aware of the situation in an email this afternoon.

In it, he acknowledged that the ‘previous rules as a whole are void and unenforceable’ but attempted to play down the development.

‘The previous APT rules are no longer in place,’ he said, ‘and new rules were voted into force’.

‘The league has previously told clubs that this decision was about the legal status of previous APT rules and would not impact the operation of new rules.’ That remains to be seen. Masters added that the new rules remain in force and that clubs remain required to comply with them.”

From DailyFail.com

While I can completely accept the first two bolded statements, it is the bolded and italicized text that seems delusional.

The rush to vote on the new rules is now abundantly clear…he needed to be able to force City to be the bad guy and sue the PL AGAIN when the obvious ruling came down.

Hard to see the new rules being anything but fruit of the poisonous tree at this point, but I guess City are going to have to force the matter once more.

Masters position is absolutely untenable and needed to go already, but his deluded comments appear to confirm his chutzpah and desire to continue the charade.

Lock and load, City, and roll in hot!

I’m guessing if Masters appointed by the rags and scousers he will continue until the final nail is placed and even they know his number is up

 

[Coatigan]

How is this not a tangible victory.
The rules we challenged as being unlawful, have been deemed unlawful.

Is it supposedly intangible because they now have to be ameded, to make tham lawful? That to me is about as tangible as it gets!