You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Sounds like they provided Sky with a statement but never published it anywhere?
Which then follows the question above, why not. And why has nobody else run with it in the media, even with an 'according to a statement seen by Sky'.
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.
This, it seems to work both ways, and logically at least, can only be all in or nothing.
Lovely post. She's just buggered off the NZ with mates for a fortnight. Guatemala last month...she's doing OK. She's a solid Blue, most importantly, a known pitch-invader when titles were won, lol. She's getting married this year too. Smart kid, sharp as a tack from 3 years old. I like to think she has her mother's brains and her father's charm.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.
In order of importance, imo. As I understand it all.Can anyone say in a few words what City want to gain from the APT challenges? I am totally confused as to what we have “won”
1. The right to sign deals that a sponsor feels worth it, as opposed to this being decided by the PL
2. The right to value the club assets and shares according to the market rather than nationality of owners/parties involved.
3. The right to use full income in PSR calculations
4. That other clubs that have free shareholder loans approved may have to apply interest payments, balancing it out at least some way.
5. Moral high ground, in the sense they warned the PL the rules were unlawful, that they were open to challenge, and have proved that right.
6. Above, a second time with how the verdict was interpreted.
7. PR and optics, which despite best efforts of the media show the club is a lot more competent than is suggested and certainly than the PL.
8. Potential for claiming damages for losses if they can demonstrate that.
9. Potential for the PL to now cover costs of the whole thing.
bluemoon32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 28,379
- Team supported
- City
Some say we've lost, some say we've won, quite what we've won or lost, i have no fucking idea.Can anyone say in a few words what City want to gain from the APT challenges? I am totally confused as to what we have “won”
Hope that helps
The PL blocked City from sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank because after they assessed them as part of APT Rules (deals done by clubs with parties directly or indirectly connected to them) the PL said they were above market value. City didn't feel they were and asked the PL to show them there workings, the PL refused. City then took the action. It's worth noting that City originally voted in favour of APT rules but it's the way the PL has handled them that has pissed them off.Can anyone say in a few words what City want to gain from the APT challenges? I am totally confused as to what we have “won”
What we (and everyone else) have won, if replacement rules aren't brought in, is the ability to have Etihad to sponsor us for 1 billion pounds a year and there would be nothing the PL could do about it.
Also worth noting that there is no indication we want to do the above, the rules were brought in shortly (within days) after the Newcastle takeover it's generally agreed the rules were to stop them.
We could also feasibly sue them for lost sponsorship with regards to the two sponsorship deals.
Some say we've lost, some say we've won, quite what we've won or lost, i have no fucking idea.
Hope that helps
We wanted the rules changed. The rules are being changed. We have 100% won.
What the actual extent and benefit of the changes is, time will tell. But ultimately challenging the rules and showing that was valid, means the main point of the whole thing has been achieved.
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
It's a mystery wrapped in an enigmaWhich then follows the question above, why not. And why has nobody else run with it in the media, even with an 'according to a statement seen by Sky'.
I'd rephrase that as "The right to sign deals that would be acceptable if the sponsor was not associated".In order of importance, imo. As I understand it all.
1. The right to sign deals that a sponsor feels worth it, as opposed to this being decided by the PL
Like to think we're only asking for a level playing field, to use a footballing analogy..
As it stands, I believe, there is nothing to stop Etihad doing a massive deal with Arsenal, and us doing one with Emirates...
That's old news since Friday, the only person who even remotely thinks the PL won now is Masters!Some say we've lost, some say we've won, quite what we've won or lost, i have no fucking idea.
Hope that helps
Last edited:
The PL blocked City from sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank because after they assessed them as part of APT Rules (deals done by clubs with parties directly or indirectly connected to them) the PL said they were above market value. City didn't feel they were and asked the PL to show them there workings, the PL refused. City then took the action. It's worth noting that City originally voted in favour of APT rules but it's the way the PL has handled them that has pissed them off.
What we (and everyone else) have won, if replacement rules aren't brought in, is the ability to have Etihad to sponsor us for 1 billion pounds a year and there would be nothing the PL could do about it.
Also worth noting that there is no indication we want to do the above, the rules were brought in shortly (within days) after the Newcastle takeover it's generally agreed the rules were to stop them.
Who is to say we won't one day be the club with the potential for a £1bn deal, be it Etihad or anyone else. The ambition and future growth of the club should not be curtailed now, which obviously impacts immediate development, but also the long term ambitions which the club have shown they are able to look at years ahead.
I'd rephrase that as "The right to sign deals that would be acceptable if the sponsor was not associated".
Like to think we're only asking for a level playing field, to use a footballing analogy..
As it stands, I believe, there is nothing to stop Etihad doing a massive deal with Arsenal, and us doing one with Emirates...
Sure, agree. Defining 'associated' is also an issue too, but that's getting into too much detail maybe.
Or more importantly Sela with Newcastle.I'd rephrase that as "The right to sign deals that would be acceptable if the sponsor was not associated".
Like to think we're only asking for a level playing field, to use a footballing analogy..
As it stands, I believe, there is nothing to stop Etihad doing a massive deal with Arsenal, and us doing one with Emirates...
Technically any club could have done any deal they wanted between October (rules were void) and November (new ones voted in), wonder if they did?
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 75,504
Let’s hope the win is the 3-2 one over QPR, rather than the 5-2 at Stoke.We wanted the rules changed. The rules are being changed. We have 100% won.
What the actual extent and benefit of the changes is, time will tell. But ultimately challenging the rules and showing that was valid, means the main point of the whole thing has been achieved.
bluemonkey71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 7,646
We laid a punch on the PL but from what I gather APT is here to stay. All this legal stuff is confusing if you aren't in that sector and even Stefan cant mind read what the PL/City barristers are doing in the background. APT needs to be fair and we've pulled them up on it. When APT2 comes out I'll take note when it's been spelt out to the masses in terms that make sense to me. The other case is more important as that's solely focussed on us and our future.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,574
I completely disagree.
I can well imagine that one of the things motivating City is that if we are subject to a regime that permits a panel appointed by the PL to decide we’re not worth what a sponsor is prepared to pay us, that same panel can decide how much interest LFC and AFC should be paying on their shareholder loans. Even if the answer is “not very much in the grand scheme of things” it will erode their spending power to a degree.
They wanted these rules, they can fucking we’ll abide by them
I stand corrected :)
Was the rest of the post bullshit as well?
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
We never wanted APT to be scrapped tbf, just for it to be fair and legal. Which it clearly wasn’tWe laid a punch on the PL but from what I gather APT is here to stay. All this legal stuff is confusing if you aren't in that sector and even Stefan cant mind read what the PL/City barristers are doing in the background. APT needs to be fair and we've pulled them up on it. When APT2 comes out I'll take note when it's been spelt out to the masses in terms that make sense to me. The other case is more important as that's solely focussed on us and our future.
The tribunal criticising the PL for ‘sleight of hand’ is probably as damning a statement as you’ll ever see in a dry legal judgement
Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 20,381
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
To me the PL has won. I mean the teams that constitute the PL. They get to have a level playing field instead of allowing those clubs that can afford interest-free £billion loans to circumvent PSR restrictions. All clubs are treated more fairly.Can anyone say in a few words what City want to gain from the APT challenges? I am totally confused as to what we have “won”
Id imagine there's a few rulings that have just become accepted over time even though they are there to protect the cartel. Maybe our club have just had enough.
Exactly this, we voted in favour of them originally.We never wanted APT to be scrapped tbf, just for it to be fair and legal. Which it clearly wasn’t
The tribunal criticising the PL for ‘sleight of hand’ is probably as damning a statement as you’ll ever see in a dry legal judgement