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

M12Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a chance ;)
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love how you simplified it so an idiot could follow it & I still got confused :(
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thanks for taking the time to explain. I can't find a weakness in that (yet), which is a bit annoying. But I will keep looking :)
 
slbsn said:
Not convinced we've suffered any loss right now on Etihad - I think the issue was later years and we may still get that approved. On the FADB it is more possible but seems unlikely we just accepted it and didn't sell the collateral to someone else. So unlikely to be a huge claim.

And then is the question of causation simply due to the rules being void for unrelated matters to the rejection. Feels difficult.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand that response. We know the PL found issues with the two deals, under a set of rules that have just been found to be unlawful in whole, not just in part. It doesn't matter whether it was later years or not, our submitted agreements were rejected.

I can understand the argument that technically we've lost nothing if these were future-dated agreements (and we know they had to be approved before we could claim them, rather than retrospectively) but we don't know the timing of these. Nor do we know whether they'll be accepted at a future date. That's just complete speculation. The facts on the ground are that two agreements were rejected, either in whole or in part.

So it seems to me that we either get these agreements accepted (which is a speculative view) or we claim the difference between what was accepted and what wasn't under those now unlawful rules. Things like speeding and parking tickets get cancelled and penalties get refunded because the circumstances in which they were imposed broke the rules that existed at the time they were imposed. Happened to me last year, where a penalty was imposed unlawfully.

And I also don't understand your notion that we'd somehow "sell the collateral [for the FAB sponsorship] to someone else". Again, that's potentially possible (I don't agree it's likely) but pure speculation on your part.

I sometimes wonder if you've spent too much time on Talksport and have fallen into their habit of saying things just to be contrary or get a reaction.
 
It was boiling piss gold watching this story break on Sly yesterday evening. That older sort who's been there since the 90s and some Rylance wannabe quiff sporting goofball were stoney faced and looked like they were reporting the Queens death. Absolutely lovely to see :) I really hope there's a quite a few so called journalists,pundits and youtubers(we know who they are) getting rather hot under the collar at this news. Come that glorious day blue brothers n sisters..and them that aren't sure! :)
 
Last edited:
www.premierleague.com

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com www.premierleague.com

I stand by this below.

Coatigan said:
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!
Click to expand...
 
slbsn said:
What is City's loss from the rejection of the 10 year Etihad deal in April 2024?
Click to expand...
I am not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose but I have explained that the previous rules are unlawful and therefore did not exist

The PL rejected the Etihad and FADB sponsorships by using unlawful rules that didn’t exist. Therefore the monies from those sponsorship deals have not yet been paid to City. How much more of a loss do you need to be shown?
 
SouthStandStander said:
From city's statement read out on SSN
"this ruling is potentially seismic on a number of different levels"

This is just the beginning boys and girls. Imho, City are playing a game we are not aware of. The end game is not clear at the moment.

Click to expand...


That's a fair take from them.

Where is this statement, not seeing it on the club website.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm not sure I understand that response. We know the PL found issues with the two deals, under a set of rules that have just been found to be unlawful in whole, not just in part. It doesn't matter whether it was later years or not, our submitted agreements were rejected.

I can understand the argument that technically we've lost nothing if these were future-dated agreements (and we know they had to be approved before we could claim them, rather than retrospectively) but we don't know the timing of these. Nor do we know whether they'll be accepted at a future date. That's just complete speculation. The facts on the ground are that two agreements were rejected, either in whole or in part.

So it seems to me that we either get these agreements accepted (which is a speculative view) or we claim the difference between what was accepted and what wasn't under those now unlawful rules. Things like speeding and parking tickets get cancelled and penalties get refunded because the circumstances in which they were imposed broke the rules that existed at the time they were imposed. Happened to me last year, where a penalty was imposed unlawfully.

And I also don't understand your notion that we'd somehow "sell the collateral [for the FAB sponsorship] to someone else". Again, that's potentially possible (I don't agree it's likely) but pure speculation on your part.

I sometimes wonder if you've spent too much time on Talksport and have fallen into their habit of saying things just to be contrary or get a reaction.
Click to expand...
What a silly response especially the last line.

You have to show a LOSS and you have a duty to MITIGATE such loss. And you need to show CAUSATION ie that the rejection was the causative reason for such loss. Selling the collateral to other parties is mitigation of the loss. You can only claim the bit you LOST. Not the gross. The PL does not offer an indemnity. It is a claim for a breach of contract.

I can't help it if people don't understand what I have explained many times. The parking ticket analogy is complete nonsense.
 
chesterguy said:
I am not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose but I have explained that the previous rules are unlawful and therefore did not exist

The PL rejected the Etihad and FADB sponsorships by using unlawful rules that didn’t exist. Therefore the monies from those sponsorship deals have not yet been paid to City. How much more of a loss do you need to be shown?
Click to expand...
Do you ever wonder if maybe you don't understand how loss works in claims?
 
slbsn said:
What is City's loss from the rejection of the 10 year Etihad deal in April 2024?
Click to expand...

Depends on so many things that none of us are privy to. Could be a week, a month, three months' worth of income from the deal, could be the effect of the delay on other deals or shares, could be lots of things depending on the structure of it all.

What do you base the opinion that there is no loss on?
 
CorporateBlue said:
- First it was 'they'll splash big money on 2nd rate talent' then Sergio, Yaya, Silva and KDB arrived
- Then it was 'they'll never be able to gel all these big money signings' and we won the F Cup, then the league, then got 100 points, then broke the goal scoring record, then won the Treble, then won 4 in a row
- Then it was 'yeah but you'll never win the Champs League' so we did that
- All the while it was 'but you've got no fans' and we sell out a 50k+ stadium, and are adding 12k more
- Not forgetting we 'have no history' despite winning major/Euro trophies before all of the the Red Crybabies
- Then it was 'but you have an unfair money advantage' despite Utd/Liverpool building the majority of their trophies on the back of their PL/Champs League money advantage (without any spending restrictions or rules)
- then it was 'yeah, but you've been cheating' and our lawyers just proved the first phase of 'it was the rules that were illegal' ...

Karma is a bitch ...
Click to expand...
Excellent post!
 
SouthStandStander said:
I can't find it. Hence why I reluctantly watched that ssn video. Only place I know it's being mentioned.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't dare misquote, or even atteibute a quote to something the club might not have said. Not when referring to it as a club statement.
 
SouthStandStander said:
From city's statement read out on SSN
"this ruling is potentially seismic on a number of different levels"

This is just the beginning boys and girls. Imho, City are playing a game we are not aware of. The end game is not clear at the moment.

Click to expand...


The tone is funereal. Did they change into black during the ad break?
 
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