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

[CC1]

I asked Stefan this on Friday and his immediate response was the latter not the former and hence his view aired on talksport.

So, new rules are voted in & they can be backdated?? Opens up more options for challenging the PL if clubs are adversely affected surely??

 

[Chris in London]

I have nothing to offer on the case, but I can tell you that the legal system is odd. My daughter is a criminal barrister and practically all the conversations I have with her, with me just interested to know how stuff gets done, often end with me being confused. Often too, how cases pan out seem to defy logic. The language is also confusing.

Mate, if I may, however proud of her you are, be prouder. Without knowing anything more about her I can tell you she works her fucking bollocks off and is paid a fraction of what she deserves.

Please do tell her how respected she is.

 

[Damocles]

We’re 2-1 up after 85 minutes.

Oh shit

 

[CC1]

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? :)

I think this is a good point. Basically most folk on here read what is being stated about the legalities but don’t understand any of it. The explanations need simplifying- as you say, for the “student level” - preferably junior school level :-) :-)

 

[Blue Pete]

Firstly can we all play nice. Not taking any sides in any spats, we've been here before and generally at some point the grown ups grow up and agree to disagree and respect each other. So can we just move to that point sooner rather than later.

Also I wanted to know does anyone have any idea of how much the delay/revaluation of our sponsorship deals cost us and if so how much could we expect in compensation and costs?

 

[Vic]

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 Hearing and 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.

"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."

That begs the question, why on earth wasn't it an issue to be dealt with at APT1? I was at a planning inquiry where the developer was arguing that "not to exceed 1100 houses" was not the same as "no more than 1100 houses", so you'd think during a lengthy hearing someone would have asked whether finding the rules unfair would mean the rules were void.

By the same token, APT2 not mentioning damages would not necessarily exclude a claim. If it's a "Second Partial Final Award" does that mean that it is actually concluded, or City could go back (under APT1) for a remedy to the deliberate unfairness of the void rules? That would seem "equitable".

 

[At-Swim-Two-Birds]

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.

The February Tribunal stated this,

"Second, we must conscientiously apply the third criterion of severability as laid down in Tillman, notwithstanding that, on the particular facts of this case, it leads to what may be considered the surprising result that, in the absence of severance, the RPT rules come back into operation notwithstanding that the member clubs had voted to replace them."

Followed by this,

...it is not possible to sever the shareholder loan exclusion with the result that all the APR Rules and Amended APT Rules are void."

I'm assuming APR is a typo and should read APT.

The point being the Tribunal seem to state that once APT is voided RPT rules 'come back into operation".

 

[Vic]

...

The reason I ask as I heard Stefan say yesterday that there was a period from October to November where no rules existed.

He said the PL knew from October 2024 that the rules were void (and had been since inception).

 

[Chris in London]

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 (Competition Act s.2). (Did we ever see the full text of City's letter to the other clubs saying that?) APT2 spells out why unfair = unlawful / prohibited = void.

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.

Don’t forget, a finding on the balance of probabilities is not necessarily anything more than a finding that something is 51% probable.

I imagine the tribunal started from the position that they assumed the PL acted in good faith for the betterment of the game rather than to nobble any particular club or clubs. And they were not persuaded of the contrary. But whether that was by the tightest of margins or by a very large distance we don’t know.

I suspect the timing and the language of some of the relevant emails caused their eyebrows to be raised , but as I say they obviously thought that, on balance and by a narrow margin, was not enough

 

[Chris in London]

I will just live with "it's complicated" ....

but it isn’t…

 

[halfcenturyup]

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 had a discussion about this yesterday with @slbsn. I didn't really understand the answer but this is the discussion:

Some thoughts on reflection about the PL's issue.

Hmmm .... Surely there is no historic shareholder loan interest problem any more, because all the rules are void since inception (to 2024 at least) and so there are no APT assessments to which shareholder interest must be applied historically? What am I missing?

That the PLs position is that the November 2024 are new rules and are lawful.

Lawful from 2021 after the November changes? Is that their position?

Edit: I had assumed they had written off 2021-2024 and were just concentrating on getting lawful rules post-November, as a PR win if nothing else "PL wins APT case with new rules".

Who knows for sure without their pleadings but I don't believe they are writing off any APT before Nov 2024. Just because the old rules are unlawful doesn't mean the new rules cant consider historic information/deals.

Good Lord.

What a strange position to take. They want to apply rule changes passed in November 2024 retroactively to eliminate unlawfulness in 2021-2024?

I feel a hat-trick coming up.

I suppose there must be some legal justification for that position? It all seems so counter-intuitive.

Not sure I see it that way. They want a workable set of APT rules for ongoing assessments of PSR and City appear to want those rules to incorporate adjustments for FMV for all historic periods and may even be asking the PL to rerun 22/23 and 23/24 tests on such a basis. We simply don’t know.

But if it was just 24/25 and on with 22/23 and 23/24 interest FMVed that seems reasonable presuming fair mitigation is granted to Everton and other clubs with big interest FMV adjustments for 22/23 and 23/24 in such a scenario.

I'm struggling with all this, as you can probably tell.

I can't see any business reason why City would want to force the PL to apply the new rules retrospectively, but I can think of many reasons why the PL would want to do that themselves, and why City would want to stop them.

Anyway, I have taken up enough of your time. If you had to explain everything to me about this whole sorry mess that I struggle with, we will both be here until doomsday. We will see soon enough, I suppose.

Because if they insist on the retrospective without a matching mitigation, we could have, for example, to charge Everton an extra £20m pa FMV interest (could be more) for the last 2 years and say another £5m before October such that they fail 22/23 by enough extra for, say, 3 more points, 23/24 for maybe another 3 points and make it near impossible for them to pass 24/25 and 25/26 all due to rules that didn't even exist before October so beyond their control.

Yes, I understand the consequences.

I just don't see why City would be interested in that.

But I can see why the PL would want to apply all the new rules retrospectively to 2021 whilst having the transition rules for shareholder loans, and why City would want to stop that because it opens up Etihad to assessment again under the new rules?

All speculation, of course, but Occam's razor and all that.

I don’t see why Etihad would be waved through. Unless City decided to sign it after the initial decision and before the New APT Rules. I also don’t think this means every historic APT is automatically approved. But obviously guessing.

:) I must sound like a real dumb fuck to anyone who sees this clearly.

But to my simple, non-legal mind, the APT rules being found to be null and void means that they effectively didn't exist at all in the period during which the club wanted to sign the contract. In which case, the club should now be able to sign the original contract and/or claim damages for any losses incurred.

I don't see how it can be equitable for the PL to claim the contract is now covered by the newly lawful (if, indeed, they are) rules. Which would explain APT 2 if, for example, the PL informed the club in December that they were about to re-assess the Etihad transaction.

No problem if you haven't got the strength to explain it. I barely had the strength to write it :)

I just don't think that is how it works but maybe you are correct.

If you mean City can claim damages for FAB then potentially as in the explainer I did. I don't think it means Etihad is simply fully agreed on submission. But yes again, City can claim damages but I am not convinced they have losses in 24/25. Future losses not sure. And if not signed, it now needs to be submitted for FMV.

A nice, polite discussion ended when he threw me the "you may be right" bone. Clever :)

 

[Chris in London]

Oh shit

It’s okay - we’ve got Pannick all across the defence

 

[SilverFox2]

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…..

You don't think our new hotel has been built with with an equivelant of a 5th floor access in mind?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Have removed some posts again this morning, but once again let’s leave the personal attacks out of it and keep the thread on track. Thank you.

Fuck off! :-)

 

[Chris in London]

Fuck off! :-)

Rag

 

[halfcenturyup]

but it isn’t…

Good. Then I'll try again (you asked for it):

In the actual APT case, the rules were written in 2021, amended in February 2024, certain rules were found to be unlawful in October 2024 and so amendments written in November 2024 to (potentially) correct the unlawfulness. In February 2025, it was clarified that the October ruling meant the APT rules were null and void at that stage.

You have explained to me that the November amendments make the rules lawful from November, but my question is if those new lawful rules can be applied back to 2021/2024 so that the rules are now suddenly enforceable since inception?

I promise I won't ask any more stupid questions if you can explain that clearly to me :)

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

I promise not to come on here for a while

Really hope you’re not being forced off this forum, Stefan.

Your contribution is invaluable.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Mate, if I may, however proud of her you are, be prouder. Without knowing anything more about her I can tell you she works her fucking bollocks off and is paid a fraction of what she deserves.

Please do tell her how respected she is.

tbf, they are billing far more than they did before Covid. I’d say plus 50% on average. It’s partly because of the increase in graduated fee (legal aid) rates, the first since (iirc) 2008 but also because of the backlog (Covid and pre-existing) and the ridiculously small number of criminal pupillages in the last fifteen years has meant as older criminal practitioners have retired they haven’t been replaced.

All this simply means there aren’t enough criminal barristers relative to the amount of work in the system, and so they are all ridiculously busy. Even pretty junior criminal barristers can bill £150k (before chambers rent) now from legal aid work, up from about £100k before Covid, but fuck me are they made to work for it.

I think a lot of enjoyment has gone out of that part of the profession.

 

[Maly]

So are we winning or fucked

Yes

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Yes

2nd-ed