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

Other than on these pages I haven't seen anything to suggest that the November 2024 APT rules are retrospective.

In fact the February 2025 Tribunal stated that as the APT1 rules are void the 'surprising result' is that the 'RPT rules come back into operation'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
Coatigan said:
It sounds like the PL's position (from reading their own statement rather than what anyone says) is that the November 24 rules 'fix' the unlawfulness of the 2021-2024 rules. So then all contracts would still have been in accordance with those rules and don't need changed.

But that surely depends on the specific contracts and details, to determine how they were affected.

By that same logic, say for example were shareholder loans to be treated the same, you would expect clubs to then retrospectively have to pay them.

The whole thing sounds messy.

Surely the more sensible thing would be to treat it all as a fresh start, and deal with any claims for loss individually.
Click to expand...

Agree (although I’d love the clubs that had interest free shareholder loans to have to pay retrospective FMV interest). :-)
 
slbsn said:
You can't have no rules at all IMO
Click to expand...
Do you believe that the rules they are trying to implement such as psr apt and fmv are only being brought in because clubs that are being bought by wealthy owners are able to blow the established so called bigger clubs such as the red teams out of the water?
Clubs like united and liverpool bought all the better players because they had the backing to do so..so why shouldn't clubs like City or Newcastle Villa etc be able to do the same..
In my opinion I think football existed perfectly well without these restrictions and I would have no problem with any club being taken over and the owners pumping money into them to ensure they too could be competitive.
Sorry for rambling slightly off topic but it's only the question I asked that I am curious about..
 
Lord Blue said:
the club are possibly waiting for the conclusion of APT 2 before commenting. assuming they even bother to comment.
Click to expand...
This latest one is a very big headline not to comment on imo. Even a placeholder, to acknowledge it and say it is a continuation of the process which will carry on to the further assessment of the November changes.
 
blue by birth said:
Do you believe that the rules they are trying to implement such as psr apt and fmv are only being brought in because clubs that are being bought by wealthy owners are able to blow the established so called bigger clubs such as the red teams out of the water?
Clubs like united and liverpool bought all the better players because they had the backing to do so..so why shouldn't clubs like City or Newcastle Villa etc be able to do the same..
In my opinion I think football existed perfectly well without these restrictions and I would have no problem with any club being taken over and the owners pumping money into them to ensure they too could be competitive.
Sorry for rambling slightly off topic but it's only the question I asked that I am curious about..
Click to expand...

The PL said as much, the APT rules came about as a consequence of the Newcastle deal being allowed through.

It’s different issues really though. Personally I’d like them to look at distribution of wealth within the game in general but that boat has long since sailed.
 
Rammy Blue said:
We might be conscious of the fact that the 115/130 decision is imminent and choosing to bide our time.
Click to expand...

I had considered that and was waiting for someone else to say it. The 'statement' read out on Sky certainly had a 'we told you so' somewhat inflammatory feel to it. Which is interesting that it is nowhere to be seen.

We know from the CAS case, that the club at their most confident, actually extended Uefa an olive branch (in tone/animosity, rather than any concession, for clarity). One of the few times Ferran himself spoke publicly about it, when he went on about rebuilding relationships. If they are holding off rubbing the PL's face in it here, it could be seen as reminiscent of that.
 
Chris in London said:
No I haven’t. I’ve said the PL have introduced measures which might be lawful. They appear to have removed the ingredients (perhaps save one) which made the rules unlawful. It remains to be seen whether the rules are actually unlawful.

Generally regulations do not have retrospective application. If you decide in 2025 that smoking in public is unlawful you can’t prosecute someone for doing that in 2024 (though Parliament can do what it wants, and if it specifically says “this law has retrospective effect” that’s the end of it. But the PL is not Parliament.)

I think, if I have understood you correctly, and I’m not sure I have, you are not distinguishing between actual retrospective effect and apparent retrospective effect. The former is where the law changes, so that an act that was not criminal at the time it was committed becomes criminal after the event. This is exceptionally rare for obvious reasons.

What is more common is something that looks like it has retrospective effect but doesn’t really when you analyse it properly. So for instance, the provision that permits a certain leeway to be given in relation to shareholder loans in the 21-24 period isn’t really retrospective, because it relates to assessments that are carried out from 2025 onwards. How you look at something historically and whether you retrospectively criminalise it are two different things

My apologies if I haven’t understood you correctly.
Click to expand...

HMRC are the only people i know who can retrospectively change the rules, then hit you with a tax bill.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
Click to expand...
The 115 is about concealed equity funding (where the money came from). So the PL said yes Etihad can sponsor you for 50mil (sic) and we get 50mil but the PL now allege that Etihad only gave 20mil of it and the other 30mil came from Mansour via Etihad (he gave it to Etihad who then gave it to us)
 
chesterguy said:
My supplemental question would be how can rules that à Tribunal say were Null and Void in their entirety from 2021 to Oct 2024 still be relied on because of a vote that took place in Nov 2024.

The PL cannot take action against shareholder loans in those years so they cannot implement the rules that were voted in Nov 2024. Surely that is unfair to other clubs.
Click to expand...

A good question, and one I haven't been able to understand from the various answers given by our lawyer friends.

@slbsn certainly thinks it can be argued the November rules should have included historic shareholder interest and that this (according to reports) is the club's main issue in APT2. He also doesn't think the Etihad deal is now immune from re-assessment (assuming the deal hasn't been signed yet at the PL's valuations). Which means to me that the November rules can be applied retrospectively to 2021-2024 if they are found to be lawful. On what basis, I don't know. It's all so counter-intuitive.

I can't imagine the club really gives a toss about shareholder interest other than as a tool to void the November rules so Etihad isn't re-assessed or for some unidentified strategic reason (a spanner in the FFP/ PSR works anyone?).

I suppose the timing may work for the former: rules passed in November, PL notifies club to review Etihad again in December, club asks tribunal to judge November changes in December, tribunal declines, club starts APT2 in January.

Completely speculative, of course, but speculation is all we have .....
 
Jazzman said:
Where did this come from? I could not find it on the City Website. Is it genuine?
Click to expand...
That is the question I and a couple keep asking.

Imo Sky wouldn't dare misquote or fabricate it, not as explicitly as that.

Yet days later, it is nowhere to be found in writing.
 
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