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

petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
That seems a fair and balanced summary based on what we know. My own view is that Steffan misjudged the strength of feeling that this win would be welcomed by fans - we should enjoy it after all that has been said about our club.
I think you are agreeing with him that the practical implications may not be that great, albeit in its own statement the club used the phrase 'Seismic on many levels' which suggests they feel differently.
I think we should all just enjoy this win while we can, and lets hope the celebrations can continue around 4.55pm this afternoon.
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...
He hasn't fallen on his sword yet, I suppose, primarily because no one else is genuinely interested in the position until the 115 case is settled. When that comes to an end, I don't think many people will want to be the sitting CEO because of the enormous ramifications from the Premier League side if City wins that one, as most of us suspect they will.
Given the serious damage done to his legacy and reputation, I hope he takes pleasure in counting the money he has made. It is possible that he may be remembered as the worst executive in English football history.
 
slbsn said:
Sitting on the fence, pro City, not pro City enough, too opinionated, not opinionated, blah blah
Click to expand...

You won’t be as angry or as much of a swearer than myself I’m sure, but please tell me there is a part of you when you in their studio that when off air you want to say to Jordan that he’s one smug self opinionated prick who should just shut up and listen for 5 mins instead of waffling shite

Be nice to see his face on this news that has broke yesterday anyway, and also be amusing to hear his excuses as to why this has happened to justify himself being right in some respects
 
Scoobz3 said:
Very few articles on this compared to the first time around in the Press. Sam Wallace of the DT etc. nowhere to be seen !
Click to expand...
Strange, isn’t it? Where have all these (so called) journalists masquerading as legal experts disappeared to?…

Anyone heard from Rob Draper?
 
Nightmare Walking said:
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.
Click to expand...

It’s not his fault that a very complex issue is extremely difficult to a) understand b) explain & clarify.
Even the media - who have some legal staff - are unable to explain it all.

You’ve made it personal - not Stefan
 
Didsbury Dave said:
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.
Click to expand...
Someone said exactly the same to me 32 years ago! And I followed his advice with gusto!
 
Nightmare Walking said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nobody is perfect & we all have had enough of this tit for tat unnecessary bickering
 
Nightmare Walking said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fuck off!
 
Nightmare Walking said:
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.
Click to expand...
Use the ignore button and stop being offended then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
Nightmare Walking said:
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.
Click to expand...
fuck off
 
slbsn said:
I don't follow. Sorry
Click to expand...

I'll try again

The APT rules are null and void through November 2024 even if the new rules are lawful?

So there are no APT assessments to backdate interest into?

So discussion of backdating interest for APT purposes is meaningless?

Last question would be if not including interest on shareholder loans in the FFP/ PSR assessments makes those rules unlawful too?

If that isn't clear either, I'll shut up :)
 
antste said:
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
Click to expand...

They were put in place to stop Newcastle. We are the Trojan Horse, Newcastle are the ones who will unleash Hell.
 
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