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

[cheekybids]

Does he track back?

 

[Silva&Silva]

Has Richard Masters handed in his notice yet?

 

[Vic]

So lets say City were forced to go ahead with Etihad (unique sponsor, unique package of rights etc) to take £20m less for 24/25 and 24/25 is now finished and the rules were void. That would seem to be a recoverable loss if it was established that it was caused because of the APT rules being incorrectly applied.

The FAB deal seems like a claimable loss as the deal was revised down and the club is not in a position to recover the lost revenue. In that case the loss is the difference between the headline submitted and the amount required to be revised down.

But if the rejection was for future years where loss could be mitigated or the deal resubmitted then loss is more questionable/doesn't exist.

So there might be a recoverable loss?

City will have the evidence. Say they negotiated a sponsorship deal for £100m. Under APT1 the PL said it's only worth £80m. The sponsor gets the deal for less than what they thought it was worth and were willing to pay. Without the unlawful rules (which now are confirmed to be no rules at all) City would be £20m better off.

That seems to satisfy the test for loss (£20m), cause (a third party imposed an unlawful restriction), and mitigation (City could not mitigate that loss)?

I note that the Tribunal reserved judgment in the partial award as to injunctive relief and damages because they hadn't been asked (but it sounded like they expected the PL to negotiate a settlement out of court). The final judgment doesn't mention that, but not mentioning it doesn't mean it can't happen. (As I observed above, it seems remiss of the Tribunal not to have been clearer about what their ruling meant - or maybe they, like City, thought it was obvious and didn't expect the PL's PR push to say they'd won and the rules could just be amended.)

 

[JASR]

message from a rag mate

him: seems like city have played the card they always rely on... paying people megamoney to keep quiet.

me: which people, to be quiet about what?

him: city bigwigs have paid the premier league bigwigs off to smooth things over.

me: they lost in court.

him: a paid court.

It’s been mentioned before by someone on this thread…
The counter to all this ‘well you bought off the tribunal/CAS/etc’ is a simple, ‘why would City buy off the final stage of a process involving an entity, when they could have bought off the same entity prior to any accusations, media dragging, years of bollox?’

It takes explaining that, for the penny to drop sometimes, that what they want to believe is just a serious level of ‘cope’ of their hopes, rather than understanding logical facts.

If the penny doesn’t drop, then it’s not worth the time or effort to engage. It’s probably better to ignore or just wholeheartedly agree with absolutely everything they spout.

 

[TedofChume]

It can only be back dated to mid 2021 at worst. APT didn't exist before that.

Yes but interest free / low interest shareholder loans did exist before then, and from what I can see this is a separate issue to APTs.

Yes it was part of City's APT case, but if they now need assessing at fair market value, surely that principle must/could apply since the start of PSR?

Obviously it's a separate argument/csse, but City have proven the point in their APT case, so a further step could be to push this agenda next and get PSR declared void.

 

[tonea2003]

Clearly. But clearly the PL's legal team has the same info as City and they also disagree with certain bits. I don't think people understand just how marginal so many legal cases of this type are and how both side's lawyers can simultaneously sound completely and utterly right whilst one party is then declared wrong.

With that in mind Can I switch to the 115 and the club statement of
“A irrefutable body of evidence in support of its position”
If indeed what you say is correct which undoubtedly you are
Then that was a risky move to go public like that immediately
Because as you know and have said correct me if I’m wrong
Accusations of large scale fraud and ultimately criminal activity

 

[Mancity1980]

Fag packet maths, let's call it £20m for both sets of legal fees on this one?

Another £50m on 130?

I very much doubt even the Premier League have the appetite to appeal City's next big win?

Our legal team knew this when they launched the legal action.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

message from a rag mate

him: seems like city have played the card they always rely on... paying people megamoney to keep quiet.

me: which people, to be quiet about what?

him: city bigwigs have paid the premier league bigwigs off to smooth things over.

me: they lost in court.

him: a paid court.

Tell your rag mate he’s a fucking nonce.

 

[cheekybids]

Fag packet maths, let's call it £20m for both sets of legal fees on this one?

Another £50m on 130?

I very much doubt even the Premier League have the appetite to appeal City's next big win?

I don’t think he’ll be getting a golden handshake from the clubs. Scudamore got £250k from each club.

 

[JASR]

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

What about the non-backdating of soft owner loans? That would seem to be a large thing for City to want to be written into APT3?

 

[Vic]

There have been nearly 800 posts in the 18 hours since I was last on this thread and I've barely scratched the surface of those. Nor have I read anything about the judgment other than a couple of reports. If this lack of detailed knowledge of the case means I'm mistaken in the analysis below, then apologies and I'm happy to be corrected. Anyway, for what they're worth, this post contains my impressions so far.

Clearly, this is a win for City and not merely a negligible one. We set out to have the PL's APT rules declared void and they were, so there's no other way to view it. There's certainly satisfaction to be taken from that, whatever else happens subsequently. I therefore won't criticise City fans who want to enjoy the moment given the clear hostility with which the PL regards our club and I'm pleased, too.

That said, the practical effect as we move forward may not end up being all that significant for a couple of reasons:

1. It's only the old set of rules that has been struck down by this ruling and there's now a new set that the PL claims is valid because the offending provisions from the previous rules have been removed, so City have to go through the whole process again to have the new rules invalidated and it's hard at the moment to judge from outside what the prospects are in that case.
2. In terms of City claiming compensation for the PL rejecting proposed sponsorship deals of the club under the old rules, any claim needs to show that the loss claimed results directly from the PL's actions, and that may not be easy to do, while, as we're basically talking about the Etihad deal here and that arrangement is evidently still in effect, it's not exactly clear from outside what the loss actually is.

I don't see any of the above as particularly contentious or controversial. However, given that I'm commenting on an arbitral award I haven't read, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

From my perspective, the major point to take away relates to the PL. In my view, in the real world, there'd be hall to pay in the relevant industry if a quasi-regulatory body tried to enact a set of rules that were subsequently declared void in their entirety and the organisation were shown, in the proceedings leading to that outcome, not to be impartial as regards leading players in the industry when formulating and applying its rules. Extensive changes in its leadership would be an absolute certainty.

In my view, Masters's position thus ought to be untenable, but I thought that was the case as soon as the initial decision became public. Nonetheless, the usual slow-witted dullards in the media were happy to perform their accustomed client journalist role by spinning, after the initial determination, the claim, highly dubious even then, that the PL had been the victors in the case.

If he survives now, I assume it's so he can be the fall-guy should the so-called '115' case produce an outcome that influential PL member clubs regard as unpalatable. I regard his eventual demise as a certainty and will celebrate it whenever it comes.

"any claim needs to show that the loss claimed results directly from the PL's actions, and that may not be easy to do" Not even if the PL used void rules to say a deal was not fair market value?

 

[calumdown]

I didn't have any rag mates growing up! Surrounded myself the blues me.

you were lucky.
i didn't have that choice.
there was only me and one other blue lad where we lived as kids growing up in the 60s and 70s.

what were we to do?
not play out?

there wasn't any hatred.
we were blue, they were red.

i know blokes 20yrs older than me that are rags but actually went to maine rd regularly to watch city too in the 60s.
they've only become bitter about things recently, haha.

 

[cheekybids]

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

I’m worried about 115, he’s always been sure we’ll win that.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Would you want any lawyer who tells people to fuck off when they question his viewpoint on an Internet forum?

Err….

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Our legal team knew this when they launched the legal action.

And that's before any type of loss claims City and sponsors might be able to argue over a three year period.

Add in other clubs like Newcastle, and the Premier League could easily be facing a £200m plus pay out.

Let's see if the majority like having £10m each withheld for dispersements.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

You're now obviously trying to troll Stefan (poorly), give it a rest.

No trolling and the conversation has finished.
I don't even disagree with his viewpoint as I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to make an informed stance on it.
But surely you can understand why people are a bit miffed when he is saying it is a small win for City but significant and big wins for the Premier League. There is literally only him and the Premier League who are suggesting this. Is it really a shock when people who are less knowledgeable on these topics are questioning him when what he is saying seems totally at odds with what the club has said previously?
Instead of being able to present his viewpoint in a manner which people may be able to digest and which makes sense. He seems to have the attitude that because he has read the decisions and he understands the language being conveyed, then that makes him correct and more fool the rest of us.
The vast, vast majority of us on here are not experts in these fields. If he can't read the room and has to resort to telling people to fuck off, that says more about his character than mine.
There is absolutely no trolling going on. I have absolutely no inclination to continue conversing with him.

 

[TedofChume]

There have been nearly 800 posts in the 18 hours since I was last on this thread and I've barely scratched the surface of those. Nor have I read anything about the judgment other than a couple of reports. If this lack of detailed knowledge of the case means I'm mistaken in the analysis below, then apologies and I'm happy to be corrected. Anyway, for what they're worth, this post contains my impressions so far.

Clearly, this is a win for City and not merely a negligible one. We set out to have the PL's APT rules declared void and they were, so there's no other way to view it. There's certainly satisfaction to be taken from that, whatever else happens subsequently. I therefore won't criticise City fans who want to enjoy the moment given the clear hostility with which the PL regards our club and I'm pleased, too.

That said, the practical effect as we move forward may not end up being all that significant for a couple of reasons:

1. It's only the old set of rules that has been struck down by this ruling and there's now a new set that the PL claims is valid because the offending provisions from the previous rules have been removed, so City have to go through the whole process again to have the new rules invalidated and it's hard at the moment to judge from outside what the prospects are in that case.
2. In terms of City claiming compensation for the PL rejecting proposed sponsorship deals of the club under the old rules, any claim needs to show that the loss claimed results directly from the PL's actions, and that may not be easy to do, while, as we're basically talking about the Etihad deal here and that arrangement is evidently still in effect, it's not exactly clear from outside what the loss actually is.

I don't see any of the above as particularly contentious or controversial. However, given that I'm commenting on an arbitral award I haven't read, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

From my perspective, the major point to take away relates to the PL. In my view, in the real world, there'd be hall to pay in the relevant industry if a quasi-regulatory body tried to enact a set of rules that were subsequently declared void in their entirety and the organisation were shown, in the proceedings leading to that outcome, not to be impartial as regards leading players in the industry when formulating and applying its rules. Extensive changes in its leadership would be an absolute certainty.

In my view, Masters's position thus ought to be untenable, but I thought that was the case as soon as the initial decision became public. Nonetheless, the usual slow-witted dullards in the media were happy to perform their accustomed client journalist role by spinning, after the initial determination, the claim, highly dubious even then, that the PL had been the victors in the case.

If he survives now, I assume it's so he can be the fall-guy should the so-called '115' case produce an outcome that influential PL member clubs regard as unpalatable. I regard his eventual demise as a certainty and will celebrate it whenever it comes.

It was reported in November that two of City's sponsorship deals were barred unfairly
So there is a loss to be pursued. The Etihad deal is now £20m a year less and the FAB one didn't go ahead because they took too long. I think that is right.

I agree with the rest of what you have said, but all these minor wins will eventually add up to a major victory!

 

[Chris in London]

I think part of the problem is I have actually read the decisions.

There’s your error…

 

[halfcenturyup]

It can only be back dated to mid 2021 at worst. APT didn't exist before that.

That's one of the things I'm not getting.

Is this the situation?

At the moment the APT rules are void for 2021-2024, so there is no backdating of interest because there were no rules.

So there is no need to question the application of interest retrospectively in APT 2 as there were no valid APT rules through 2024.

So the only questions are if just the revisions are sufficient to make the rules lawful (it seems so) and if there should be transitional provisions at all in the new rules, or if they should all just be effective immediately from November?

Then the overriding question (which would need another arbitration, presumably) is whether the distortion caused by the lack of FMV assessment on shareholder loans for FFP/PSR since inception makes those rules unlawful, and possibly null and void?

 

[SWP's back]

One thing that seems indisputable even on the PL's case is that between 25 September 2024 and 11 December 2024 (or whenever the November amendments came into force), there were no enforceable APT rules. Any deals signed then do not need any prior approval. Be interesting to see if anyone did that.

You said the 24/25 Etihad deal was approved as it’s on our shirts. What chance that deal (or a deal) was signed during that period I wonder.