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

[dickie davies]

My lad has just told me that Stefan also stated that City wouldn't win at CAS. I don't recollect this. I true there us a pattern emerging. :)

Stefan wrote two outstanding pieces before CAS, one written on the UEFA side and one on the City side
The idea being, you read them both and drew your own conclusions

Perhaps your lad only read one!

 

[eastmanc]

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?

Misinformation.

 

[oldius]

I'm still confused as to why the PL are claiming that the APT2 rules are all fine and dandy if all they did was change a paragraph or three from the original APT rules. I can't see us withdrawing and it's not up to the PL regardless (presuming we're talking about putting it to the panel of course).

I am no longer worried about what they say. Their public pronouncements are PR exercises, IMO, and nothing to do with reporting the case outcome honestly. This latest loss refutes, in entirety, their previous claim of the rules being absolutely fine apart from three minor points. The rules have now been announced as entirely null and void, from 2021 to 2024. Their announcement was not true.

Now, they hang their hat on the 2024 version of the rules being legal. From what @slbsn has written about the 'blue pen test', something I have never heard of, changing sections of rules cannot be undertaken. Those rules have to be removed from the rulebook, not rewritten. This is my understanding of what Stefan has written, backed by @Chris in London , but they may correct my understanding. Either way, apologists for the PL, and those who decreed City as the big, bad wolf are looking rather glum today and they will be searching for excuses. Expect to see lots of brown envelope accusations, something about state-owned and stuff about lawyers just keeping on going until the other side gives up.

 

[Aguerooooooo93:20]

Greetings from page 2005.I can't wipe the biggest grin off my face :-)
Page 2115 looking good for today or tomorrow?

I've sent the vid (below) to my football five a side whatsapp.Plenty of
rags and the odd dipper.None are taking the bait as yet.



As you were Blues

 

[moomba]

The way I see it, even if it was a small win for the club, potentially only affecting a few years, it's a huge loss for the league.

Richard Masters just cost its member clubs millions and I don't know why any club would believe him the next time he puts forward rules for them to vote for. Surely the phone calls must be flying around discussing his fitness for the job and his future.

And finally I think (some) opposition supporters must be starting to have second thoughts about believing the league over the club on any sort of regulatory issue. And that's got to be a good thing.

Putting all of that to one side, it's just brilliant to get one over the league that have and continue to treat us with disdain. So yesterday was a very, very good day for me.

 

[eastmanc]

Stefan wrote two outstanding pieces before CAS, one written on the UEFA side and one on the City side
The idea being, you read them both and drew your own conclusions

Perhaps your lad only read one!

Eh don't shoot the messenger. But you're right he might have of only read one of them.

 

[Nephin Man]

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.

The metric is whatever the elite make divided by whatever the elite determine is enough to stymie any threats to them. That's the problem.

Also, yes, Sheikh Mansour tacitly accepted the rules by buying City, but he also expected that they would be compliant with the law. Ian Herbert was saying FSG bought Liverpool on the understanding all clubs would abide by the rules, but he doesn't allow SM the same grace with the law.

 

[eastmanc]

Greetings from page 2005.I can't wipe the biggest grin off my face :-)
Page 2115 looking good for today or tomorrow?

I've sent the vid (below) to my football five a side whatsapp.Plenty of
rags and the odd dipper.None are taking the bait as yet.



As you were Blues

Save it for the 115 Blue.

 

[slbsn]

Eh don't shoot the messenger. But you're right he might of only read one of them.

The 2 pieces weren't written pro and con. They were analysis based on the limited info at the time. There is a whole thread on here with them and on google.

Messenger's should fact check before coming out with nonsense.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

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

I don't think there is any criticism of people giving their opinion. That is the purpose of any forum.

Civil discussion and conversation is what we are here for.

When the media appointed expert comes out with statements totally at odds with what they club are suggesting, it's not surprising the there are going questions asked of the expert.

Now, do we believe the expert or the club? If we are not going to believe the club here, why should we believe them when they state they have irrefutable evidence against the other case?

I have no idea regarding the implications of this judgement or what it all really means. But when the experts opinion seems to be totally at with the mood music this morning, is it any surprise that the expert is questioned?

Instead of the expert being able to communicate his stance in a manner that the laymen can understand. He gets agitated and tries justifying his position by insinuating none of us have got a clue as we have not read the room and we don't understand the judgement anyway. That looks like he is unable to read the room and does not fully understand the limitations of those he is conversing with. These are not good character traits for a lawyer.

Then to start dishing out profanities from behind his keyboard, not only shows a lack of respect but it also shows he is unable to restrain himself and maintain his composure. Would you want any lawyer who tells people to fuck off when they question his viewpoint on an Internet forum?

 

[thomas1307]

I'm still confused as to why the PL are claiming that the APT2 rules are all fine and dandy if all they did was change a paragraph or three from the original APT rules. I can't see us withdrawing and it's not up to the PL regardless (presuming we're talking about putting it to the panel of course).

i'm confused as well i thought when i saw the headline that it wouldn't matter about this second hearing because apt rules we null and void but reading stefan post and what the premier league have said maybe that's not the case

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I'm still confused as to why the PL are claiming that the APT2 rules are all fine and dandy if all they did was change a paragraph or three from the original APT rules. I can't see us withdrawing and it's not up to the PL regardless (presuming we're talking about putting it to the panel of course).

If the PL had common sense they would have waited so they could adjust the rules after the Judges’ decision on APT 1. As a member City and other clubs should have been involved in the discussions. Masters is totally out of his depth and doesn’t have the required experience to be a CEO. This can’t go on surely.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

The way I see it, even if it was a small win for the club, potentially only affecting a few years, it's a huge loss for the league.

Richard Masters just cost its member clubs millions and I don't know why any club would believe him the next time he puts forward rules for them to vote for. Surely the phone calls must be flying around discussing his fitness for the job and his future.

And finally I think (some) opposition supporters must be starting to have second thoughts about believing the league over the club on any sort of regulatory issue. And that's got to be a good thing.

Putting all of that to one side, it's just brilliant to get one over the league that have and continue to treat us with disdain. So yesterday was a very, very good day for me.

What I can’t understand is why we did it
My understanding is/was that this effects Newcastle and other teams ( maybe Villa )
Far more than us
Therefore why didn’t they bring the action or why wasn’t it brought jointly

 

[moomba]

What I can’t understand is why we did it
My understanding is/was that this effects Newcastle and other teams ( maybe Villa )
Far more than us
Therefore why didn’t they bring the action or why wasn’t it brought jointly

Interesting question which I don't have an answer for.

 

[waspish]

I'm still confused as to why the PL are claiming that the APT2 rules are all fine and dandy if all they did was change a paragraph or three from the original APT rules. I can't see us withdrawing and it's not up to the PL regardless (presuming we're talking about putting it to the panel of course).

We don't know until they go to court to be assessed! They "could" be fine legal

 

[Vic]

:) 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.

You just amend the offending wording in the void contract, and sign a new contract.

Stupid question, maybe. Why September 2024 and not 2021?

He was talking about the PL view - even they knew the rules were unlawful after the panel's initial judgment.

 

[Coatigan]

This is all beyond me! I am a football fan, and I understand a bit about that (or I like to think so anyway), but can anyone explain what yesterday’s announcements actually means?

We disagreed with new rules and wanted them changed.

They are getting changed.

To what extent and benefit, time will tell.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

To summarise, football was good and fair when United were winning everything, but is rubbish and unfair now that they’re shit.

Exactly.

 

[Chris in London]

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 :)

Look away. But don’t forget there’s a game in 5 hours

 

[SilverFox2]

The cunts don’t know what they’re doing is the simple answer.

I know they have good legal people there who must give good legal advice so is it fair to say they simply pay lip service to them still feeling they make the laws. I have noticed that despite going tariff mad the new US Presidents men seem to want to tell the UK where our legal system is incorrecyt

Is it possible that both parties may now withdraw from APT2? It seems we have already achieved what we wanted with APT1.

I got the impression AP2 was a "just in case" we don't win as much as we want situation. In other words if this result gives us what we want why persue things that may be illegal but suit us?