I strongly suspect that Platini and his mates at the time of the Chelsea takeover were shit scared of Abramovich and his links to Putin. The potential for a dose of polonium in their morning brew helped them turn a blind eye…..Problem is nothing was done about Chelsea only City. They might of thought about putting ffp in place when they got the money but they only actually did when the Sheikh rocked up at City.
I'm afraid even the most basic legal situations have in the past been referred to my trusted legal professionals so I need interpretation.I can sense the words "fuck off" forming somewhere in the ether :)
I think part of the problem is that @slbsn is so involved with the subject matter on a day to day basis, and is presumably very good at it, and so sometimes forgets that the rest of us need more explanations to understand the legalities to his level.
Also, I don't blame him for being a little tetchy recently in view of the bizarre comments which have been aimed in his direction.
I don't have a problem with that, tbh. I will just keep asking questions until I get as close as I can. It doesn't bother me if I get a snide reply every now and then, but I can imagine it bothers others.
Maybe what we need on here is someone who can explain @slbsn 's legal views down to the level of a regular poster on here. That's a different skill set, I think, maybe someone who is a qualified lawyer, who deals with students on a daily basis and has a way with words. @petrusha , do you know anyone like that? :)
Possibly.I strongly suspect that Platini and his mates at the time of the Chelsea takeover were shit scared of Abramovich and his links to Putin. The potential for a dose of polonium in their morning brew helped them turn a blind eye…..
Sort of. It depends on what the contract is and what it says.
Some contracts contain (or are subject to) specific provisions that permit changes to the terms mid.contract. One example is a banking contract where the bank retains unilateral right to vary interest rates, say. Another is employment law where termination of a contract with a wholly owned subsidiary in favour of a new contract with the parent company is regarded as a continuation of the original contract.
These are the exceptions to the general rule. In the absence of some specific power to vary the terms, the conditions of a contract are agreed at the outset. An agreement to vary the contract is generally an agreement to enter into a fresh contract albeit that 98% of the terms remain the same.
In 99% of cases it doesn’t actually make a difference whether it’s a variation of an existing contract or a brand new contract. Sometimes though, it does.
I think "yes, no, maybe" covers it well enough.Thanks for trying, but no :) Didn't get any of that.
I will just live with "it's complicated" ....
Reading between the lines of the APT judgments, and particularly on not finding that the rules were aimed discriminately at Middle East clubs despite the "go figure" aspect of the timing, I wonder if the Tribunal might actually be thinking there is truth in this. That the rules were designed to be unfair is summed up by the finding that rules were "by object" unfair.I think this is a interesting question, and the answer to that Geordie tosser’s question is “there is no reason at all in principle but this is what the majority of the league’s clubs decided should be the rule.” And the APT tribunal agreed that it was a legitimate position for the PL. to take.
But make no mistake, after 30 years of not having a rule that preclude dealings between associated parties, the majority of the PL decided that they should have such a rule within days of the Newcastle takeover being announced.
Go figure.
In the same way, after years of not having those sorts of regulations, UEFA decided it was necessary to introduce FFP at precisely the time City were looking to sign Kaka. Again, go figure.
There is undoubtedly an argument to be made that football should not be a complete free-for-all. There is equally an argument to be made that it should be.
It seems to me we have ended with the worst of both worlds, where regulations have been imposed which do not provide a level playing field, are of questionable legality, appear to be applied inconsistently from one club to the next, and where disciplinary charges appear to be motivated by personal animosity on the part of the PL chief executive.
The same should then probably apply to MBS and Newcastle. Consider what he did to Khoshoggi, and the mass arrests of the other Sheiks in SaudiI strongly suspect that Platini and his mates at the time of the Chelsea takeover were shit scared of Abramovich and his links to Putin. The potential for a dose of polonium in their morning brew helped them turn a blind eye…..
It doesn'tSaying you don’t agree with every opinion shouldn’t elicit the response “But then I’ve read the details” type response. It’s a bit pissy.
We are all shooting on the dark and entitled to an opinion…or at least 2150 pages of opinions seem to suggest we are!
Nothing more to say on the matter.
I think "yes, no, maybe" covers it well enough.
I've just skipped to the most recent page, I presume from Ric's post above, that nothing has happened bar the usual suspects trying to troll Stefan?
I promise not to come on here for a while but as I have seen this, APT 1 reserved any consideration of the null and void question (and the rest) purely because no submissions were made in June.Reading between the lines of the APT judgments, and particularly on not finding that the rules were aimed discriminately at Middle East clubs despite the "go figure" aspect of the timing, I wonder if the Tribunal might actually be thinking there is truth in this. That the rules were designed to be unfair is summed up by the finding that rules were "by object" unfair.
I've still not read the full final judgment but, after APT 1, I tried to explained why I thought the finding that the rules were unfair meant City were right that the rules were null and void. (Did we ever see the full text of City's letter to the other clubs saying that?)
APT 1 reserved judgment on injunctive relief and damages. Why would they not say they reserve judgment on severing the unfair bits if that was still to decided.
I find it hard to believe that the two parties could come away from the Tribunal with different views of what the judgment actually meant. That seems an epic legal fail.
I promise not to come on here for a while but as I have seen this, APT 1 reserved any consideration of the null and void question (and the rest) purely because no submissions were made in June.
"The effect of the declarations issued by the Tribunal was not an issue at the June Hearingand so the first Partial Final Award did not deal with it."
Notably, the follow on determination, says "That all questions of costs are reserved" but says nothing on damages. Whether that means such applications are withdrawn I don't know. I guess logically, City could not make damages submissions without this decision. Perhaps this is why it is called the Second Partial Final Award. Then again, I'd have thought damages may have been mentioned as outstanding in that final conclusion.
It also says: "However, there remains for decision (in the fresh arbitration commenced on 20 January2025) whether the November 2024 Amended APT Rules are valid and effective."
Again, this suggests there are no further APT1 decisions outstanding.
No. I think it is clear that is a different case albeit with some overlap. Damages from APT1 must be for APT1 - surely.Maybe damages have been deferred to APT2?
I would like to clarify some issues. In 2021 APT rules were introduced. In November 2024 there were new rules introduced because a Tribunal identified in October 2024 that these rules had 3 elements that were unlawful. In Feb 2025 that same tribunal determined those rules voted in 2021in their entirety were null and void due to those unlawful elements
Does that mean no APT rules existed between 2021 and Nov 2024 or is it the fact that since the new rules were voted in November that they cover the period from 2021 retrospectively
The reason I ask as I heard Stefan say yesterday that there was a period from October to November where no rules existed.
Don't think it's personal for Masters, it was his task to complete upon his election from the two red shirt cry babies !Seems to me the original ffp rule was designed to stop City. A case of do as I say not as I did.
No. I think it is clear that is a different case albeit with some overlap. Damages from APT1 must be for APT1 - surely.
I would like to clarify some issues. In 2021 APT rules were introduced. In November 2024 there were new rules introduced because a Tribunal identified in October 2024 that these rules had 3 elements that were unlawful. In Feb 2025 that same tribunal determined those rules voted in 2021in their entirety were null and void due to those unlawful elements
Does that mean no APT rules existed between 2021 and Nov 2024 or is it the fact that since the new rules were voted in November that they cover the period from 2021 retrospectively
The reason I ask as I heard Stefan say yesterday that there was a period from October to November where no rules existed.
I asked Stefan this on Friday and his immediate response was the latter not the former and hence his view aired on talksport.I would like to clarify some issues. In 2021 APT rules were introduced. In November 2024 there were new rules introduced because a Tribunal identified in October 2024 that these rules had 3 elements that were unlawful. In Feb 2025 that same tribunal determined those rules voted in 2021in their entirety were null and void due to those unlawful elements
Does that mean no APT rules existed between 2021 and Nov 2024 or is it the fact that since the new rules were voted in November that they cover the period from 2021 retrospectively
The reason I ask as I heard Stefan say yesterday that there was a period from October to November where no rules existed.
I asked Stefan this on Friday and his immediate response was the latter not the former and hence his view aired on talksport.