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

[Scoobz3]

Very few articles on this compared to the first time around in the Press. Sam Wallace of the DT etc. nowhere to be seen !

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

Great post pal.

 

[calumdown]

Tell your rag mate he’s a fucking nonce.

you probably gave him a hug in shelley's :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

I just didn't have any mates :(

 

[Cobwebcat]

Yes

So basically (Red Cartel Chat) APT 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 3.1 etc will all be defeated in the courts/ tribunals but we'll eventually get to a version that will stick around???

Of all Stephan’s replies I think this one word answer sums the situation up the best.

To me the more interesting question is why are we persuing this?

Initially it was to bring APT down…definitely worth a go.

We were unsuccessful in that regard but scored three goals in different aspects of APT. The PL corrected those (maybe) and we are on version 2.

I think at this stage it’s more political than legal. In my opinion City have had enough of being accused of just about everything that the authorities can think of. This is now their way of saying two can play this game. City can do this all day every day if we need to. At some point the PL are going to have to listen to City’s points and stop accusing us or be dragged through the courts endlessly until it’s just not feasible to carry on.

My opinion. “Why” is more interesting than “What” right now.

 

[tonea2003]

Very few articles on this compared to the first time around in the Press. Sam Wallace of the DT etc. nowhere to be seen !

There won’t be, it doesn’t suit their agenda

 

[cheekybids]

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.

Excellent point

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Err….

I have never known you tell anyone to fuck off who disagreed with your opinion. Especially someone who has less knowledge than you on the topic in question. I have seen you sarcastically reply to people who were being clowns and you have outwitted them. But, you have never resorted to profanities when having a genuine and civil discussion.

 

[half & half derby scarf]

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.

Stefan is great for the media. I was a bit surprised when he was invited on Talkshite and became a schill for some of the clickbait websites. They present him as 'the voice of reason' aka the opposing view, but in reality there isn't a fence thin enough that he can't sit on.

 

[petrusha]

"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?

Sorry, I was talking about the more nebulous kind of claims I saw there, such as people saying City should sue for not being able to plan financially for the future and stuff similar to that. Claims of that nature face a substantial risk of failing on causation, IMO.

Sponsorships that were rejected under the old rules are a different story, which is why I addressed the Etihad transaction specifically as a separate point. There obviously could be a claim there. However, we don't know the terms on which it's continuing so we can't assess what the loss actually is.

EDIT - Have slightly reworded the previous post to make the above clear.

 

[slbsn]

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?

I don't follow. Sorry

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There’s your error…

Best approach is to just skim read the case summary on Westlaw and wing it…

 

[calumdown]

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.

fear not,
i gave him the long answer and he “hates to admit it but everything you say is true"

like you say,
coping mechanisms.

 

[slbsn]

Stefan is great for the media. I was a bit surprised when he was invited on Talkshite and became a schill for some of the clickbait websites. They present him as 'the voice of reason' aka the opposing view, but in reality there isn't a fence thin enough that he can't sit on.

Sitting on the fence, pro City, not pro City enough, too opinionated, not opinionated, blah blah

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Sorry, I was talking about the more nebulous kind of claims I saw there, such as people saying City should sue for not being able to plan financially for the future and stuff similar to that. Claims of that nature face a substantial risk of failing on causation, IMO.

Sponsorships that were rejected under the old rules are a different story, which is why I addressed the Etihad transaction specifically as a separate point. There obviously could be a claim there. However, we don't know the terms on which it's continuing so we can't assess what the loss actually is.

I know there was supposed to be an annual £20m uplift from Etihad after we won the Treble.

That's £60m right there. No idea on First National terms.

Etihad had been wanting to agree a new ten-year agreement.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Is the new APT case purely about APT or could it to do with squad costs control ? Saw a comment on Twitter about how debt is excluded is that not effectively a bit like the the shareholder loan APT issue ?

It's excluded because interest isn't revenue or squad cost. Not sure what you can do about that ....

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Sitting on the fence, pro City, not pro City enough, too opinionated, not opinionated, blah blah

Welcome to the party!!!

 

[antste]

I think we all agree that City won on just 3 points regarding the APT rules prior to November. We can also agree that the IC have said those 3 points are sufficient to makes those rules Null and Void.

So up until November 2024 APT rules did not exist except as a concept. City don’t think the rules as voted on in November are legal we await judgement.

The big win for some clubs is that if the

were in anyway stymied by the previous rules then they can sue

I think your last paragraph is the crux of the matter.
If no other club comes forward to say they were stymied,and city have been. Doesn't that prove the 'rules' were put in place to stop city.
I know lots of people have asked what is the point of this action city have taken - maybe this it it

 

[slbsn]

I have never known you tell anyone to fuck off who disagreed with your opinion. Especially someone who has less knowledge than you on the topic in question. I have seen you sarcastically reply to people who were being clowns and you have outwitted them. But, you have never resorted to profanities when having a genuine and civil discussion.

I didn't tell you to fuck off because you disagree with me. Think for a moment why I haven't told others to fuck off. Perhaps there is a reason.

[I reserve the right to tell others to fuck off who insult me especially those hiding behind anonymity]

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Err….

This reminds me of an advisor I had when I first set up, 20 odd years ago. He said “one of the benefits of having your own business is the freedom to tell anyone to fuck off”. I’ve never forgotten it.