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

Vic said:
I don't think we know if City's defence of the 115 includes saying that the whole case derives from unfairness (e.g. from the change to exclude debt as a factor in PSR). A defendant can say that the claimant is not coming "with clean hands" - it's not a general defence to say the other party has acted badly, but the 115 panel will know that the APT panel has said that the PL has acted badly in a case relating to PSR.
Click to expand...
I think there's a bit of mileage left in these cases yet. Who knows, they may even only be the prologue!
 
slbsn said:
I think part of the problem is I have actually read the decisions.
Click to expand...
You keep saying this. But, is the decision not in a load of legal jargon, which very full of us will comprehend in layman's terms? It would be like me saying I had read the paper on semiconductor physics and part of the problem is you have not read it. Now, I seriously doubt semiconductors or electronics fall under your remit of expertise. So, I don't expect you to fully understand the implications of a scientific paper. What I would do is try to break it down into simple parts so that people can grasp the implications.
You don't seem to communicate like that. Your default seems to be 'I'm correct because I have read the decision'.

You may well be correct in your assertions. But, when most media outlets have now changed their tune and are saying this is a massive win for City, are you really surprised when people are questioning your views when you initially said City would not won win and that initially, it was only a slight win?

You also keep saying City have not won because they will just keep changing the APT rules until they are legal. This is a little like Triggers Broom. After 3 new heads and 4 new handles, at which point does it become a new broom?

At the end of the day, you have stuck your head above the parapet for increased media exposure, ego or for financial incentives. It does not help your interests to admit that you are wrong. When all the talk this morning is of a stunning victory for City, you can't expect not to be shot when all you keep saying is "I have read the decision"

You are just insulting people's intelligence, especially when suggesting the Premier League had significant and big victories, while City only had a slight victory. It's like saying Liverpool were the best team in the country and had all the best players They should have shared the title, despite the fact City actually won it.
 
Last edited:
Vienna_70 said:
Sty radio news has just said the tribunal's ruling follows a case brought AGAINST Manchester City.

I thought it was a case brought BY Manchester City, or have I got it wrong?
Click to expand...
No and errr, Yes.

Can’t upset their armchair warriors now can they?
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...
The APT1 evidence document shows that the PL treated us with contempt. Delay after delay, obfuscation at every stage, doing everything they could to obstruct our sponsorship deals. Whatever the legal machinations this has been bad faith from day one…..and City know this full well. That’s why we have finally gone on the attack.
 
dave_blue12 said:
I fully appreciate I may be missing a key point here but if the regs ‘21 to ‘24 have been deemed unlawful and new regs were only put in place at the end of ‘24 then surely the result is that there were no regs for the 3 years in question.
Click to expand...
correct, so any deals blocked using those rules will need costing for compensation due to commercial loss. Could get exxpensive very quickly.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Didnt slbsn also think we had a slim chance of winning this case when it was first announced. As good as he is, he does get some things wrong ?
Click to expand...
What I said was competition law challenges like this are very hard to win but that my view based on one article in the Times and expressly cautioned my view was without seeing any pleadings or papers.

And I have said a billion times in these posts that I may be wrong and I don't know anything for sure. People hear what they want to hear when they want to hear it. I very much doubt you or anyone else felt I am always right. So it is all just a bizarre game of trolling.

I also said that the blue pencil approach did not appear to work earlier than anyone (14 October) so yesterday's determination is exactly in line with that.

I have said over and over that there are no certainties in law whether this case or others - it is one of the reasons why 115 is so dangerous.
 
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 there is a battle to protect our reputation which is much broader than just the legal cases. City have finally taken the gloves off.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Me personally don't get it?! My thinking if say Etihad was increasing the sponsor from 60m to 100m from 2022 and it got knocked back to 80m! In my no nought thinking the club has lost out on 20m a season since 2022.

Can you explain to me in layman's terms why what I just posted is wrong?
 
Coatigan said:
I have seen what you quoted from the previous verdict. That's not 'a win' for the PL. That's just the preamble. The club have said they haven't challenged the concept, but the implementation. So agreeing the concept is valid, but then deeming the implementation is unlawful, is about as one sided a win as it gets.

Tbh, even if the club Had challenged it and I have misread this, the end implication is still the same, the rules have been deemed unlawful and will need changed, which is ultimawhat the club were after. Given, they had no issue with the rules until the amendments that made them unlawful.
Click to expand...
City had been involved in drawing up the rules but voted against the final version and told the PL the rules might be open to legal challenge, but only did make the challenge with the 2024 amendments.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
You keep saying this. But, is the decision not in a load of legal jargon, which very full of us will comprehend in layman's terms? It would be like me saying I had read the paper on semiconductor physics and part of the problem is you have not read it. Now, I seriously doubt semiconductors or electronics fall under your remit of expertise. So, I don't expect you to fully understand the implications of a scientific paper. What I would do is try to break it down into simple parts so that people can grasp the implications.
You don't seem to communicate like that. Your default seems to be 'I'm correct because I have read the decision'.

You may well be correct in your assertions. But, when most media outlets have now changed their tune and are saying this is a massive win for City, are you really surprised when people are questioning your views when you initially said City would not won win and that initially, it was only a slight win?

You also keep saying City have not won because they will just keep changing the APT rules until they are legal. This is a little like Triggers Broom. After 3 new heads and 4 new handles, at which point does it become a new broom?

At the end of the day, you have stuck your head above the parapet for increased media exposure, ego or for financial incentives. It does not help your interests to admit that you are wrong. When all the talk this morning is of a stunning victory for City, you can't expect not to be shot when all you keep saying is "I have read the decision"

You are just insulting people's intelligence, especially when suggesting the Premier League had significant and big victories, while City only had a slight victory. It's like saying Liverpool were the best team in the country and had all the best players They should have shared the title, despite the fact City actually won it.
Click to expand...
Fabulous post and very well presented.

Are Keith Wyness and Stefan the same person ?
 
blue for life said:
If anything if they’re saying it we have won without a doubt!!!! This is going to be huge. Are Masters and Britain waiting for APT2 before they resign?
Click to expand...
It’s damning for the red Cartel that they won’t show Dickie BTEC the door. Masters wil probably sack the person hired from Sky who did the FMV calculations.

5 Live didn’t mention APT2. There was one snippet of Roan moaning though about this could lead to an unfair playing field lol
 
Last edited:
RE Masters

Don't forget to sign the petition, Noel and Liam Gallagher have signed, it's almost at 25,000 signatures now:

chng.it

Sign the Petition

Demand Richard Masters' Immediate Resignation as CEO of the Premier League
chng.it chng.it

I've laid on a bit more pressure on my blog suggesting he's committed fraud and should be struck off as a director. Either wayv it is time for him to go.

Richard Masters’ Defiance: Has the Premier League Chief Ignored the Law? - ManCityStuff

Has the Cartel forced him into Criminal Behaviour?In a landmark legal battle, Manchester City Football Club successfully challenged the Premier League's Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, exposing major governance issues at the heart of English football. Despite an independent tribunal...
mancitystuff.co.uk

I'm so pleased Simon Cliff was right and so pleased that things are going our way despite all the deliberate underhand tactics to damage our club!
 
Nightmare Walking said:
You keep saying this. But, is the decision not in a load of legal jargon, which very full of us will comprehend in layman's terms? It would be like me saying I had read the paper on semiconductor physics and part of the problem is you have not read it. Now, I seriously doubt semiconductors or electronics fall under your remit of expertise. So, I don't expect you to fully understand the implications of a scientific paper. What I would do is try to break it down into simple parts so that people can grasp the implications.
You don't seem to communicate like that. Your default seems to be 'I'm correct because I have read the decision'.

You may well be correct in your assertions. But, when most media outlets have now changed their tune and are saying this is a massive win for City, are you really surprised when people are questioning your views when you initially said City would not won win and that initially, it was only a slight win?

You also keep saying City have not won because they will just keep changing the APT rules until they are legal. This is a little like Triggers Broom. After 3 new heads and 4 new handles, at which point does it become a new broom?

At the end of the day, you have stuck your head above the parapet for increased media exposure, ego or for financial incentives. It does not help your interests to admit that you are wrong. When all the talk this morning is of a stunning victory for City, you can't expect not to be shot when all you keep saying is "I have read the decision"

You are just insulting people's intelligence, especially when suggesting the Premier League had significant and big victories, while City only had a slight victory. It's like saying Liverpool were the best team in the country and had all the best players They should have shared the title, despite the fact City actually won it.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying all this criticism of people giving their opinion. So some of their opinions may be proven wrong, it's up to everyone to come to their own opinion based on what they hear from people more knowledgeable than themselves about a particular issue. The worst thing that can happen from too much criticism is that people stop sharing their opinions. Everyone needs to be more Zen.

And I'm not surprised one or two replies are tetchy in view of many of the comments. I would be the same. Actually strike that. I don't care about what any **** thinks of me on here :)

Where you have a point, though, is that lawyers always like to give their opinions in ways that can show they were right in hindsight. They can't help it, bless them, it's just a personality fault drummed into them at law school :D
 
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