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

[its a Barm]

Need to announce the Etihad deal ASAP to show that in fact we won the argument it will leave everyone in no doubt who won.

 

[Coatigan]

"- the PL then reacted and passed through new APT rules, taking supposedly both findings into consideration."

They did this before the 'null and void' statement from the Panel.

I think they did it both times. The first they amended the rules, which the second finding declared were null and void. Then after that they voted and passed new rules, which we said we would challenge. But then settled on.

If you think about it, that makes sense. It wouldn't make sense for us to accept rules as valid, that the panel had already determined null and void, that would be a backwards step. But new rules after that, yeah they are up for grabs both ways.

At least how I remember the timeline, but I could be wrong too.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

You are right, sorry, meant to but posted early.

- We challenged the atp November version of the rules. They were ruled unlawful, but the concept of atp was deemed sound.
- we argued that meant the rules were null and void, the PL took that to mean some aspects could be tweaked and the rules remain in place.
- the second ruling confirmed the rules were null and void, and the 2021 version was what the atp rules would default to.
- the PL then reacted and passed through new APT rules, taking supposedly both findings into consideration.
- City argued the rules were still unlawful, and would go on to prove that for a 3rd time.
- City settled and agreed the new rules (post 2nd ruling but pre 3rd challenge) were valid and binding, effectively dropping/ending their challenge.

You can read into that that the club maybe got something in return to do so. You can also read into it that the rules were just fine, and the 3rd challenge might not have succeeded.

That's how I have read it, Looks like the Premier League have gotten us to accept the amended rules as lawful. That's all the statement said. Where are people getting this great victory from? Have I missed some ITK stuff?


To me that means we have either
A. Been advised to drop the case as we don't have a good chance in court.
B. The Premier League have assured us that our sponsorship deals will pass the FMV checks, so in return we have dropped our legal challenge (which to me sounds like we've been bought off, and I'm not happy one bit with that either)

 

[Coatigan]

That's how I have read it, Looks like the Premier League have gotten us to accept the amended rules as lawful. That's all the statement said. Where are people getting this great victory from? Have I missed some ITK stuff?

The Mail and Times both quickly argued it was a 'win' for City, with a bit more colouring in. Which is either 'informed presumption' through contacts with clubs, or just their own interpretation and guesswork. But as far as the (worth pointing out, joint) statement goes, yeah it doesn't touch on any of that. Stefan and others rightly point out, for us to have accepted that, we must have got something in return. Whether or what that is though, we might never know.

I have argued this since yesterday, that the statement is framed in such a way that you can't really read 'a win for City' from it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't believe there is one necessarily, btw. Just that taking it from the statement is pure guesswork.

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

The Mail and Times both quickly argued it was a 'win' for City, with a bit more colouring in. Which is either 'informed presumption' through contacts with clubs, or just their own interpretation and guesswork. But as far as the (worth pointing out, joint) statement goes, yeah it doesn't touch on any of that. Stefan and others rightly point out, for us to have accepted that, we must have got something in return. Whether or what that is though, we might never know.

I have argued this since yesterday, that the statement is framed in such a way that you can't really read 'a win for City' from it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't believe there is one necessarily, btw. Just that taking it from the statement is pure guesswork.

Yeah I saw the articles but I want something concrete, everyone would be saying the press were talking bollocks if the articles were negative, can't have it both ways.

To me this going to court and all the emails we asked for coming out in the public domain was the win.

I'm not that arsed about our sponsorship deals unless we're going to spend every penny on improving the squad and we've left money in the bank and gone into the season without a right full back so we're clearly not planning to do that!

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Yes I am bored ….

Clearly

 

[John Wayne]

That's how I have read it, Looks like the Premier League have gotten us to accept the amended rules as lawful. That's all the statement said. Where are people getting this great victory from? Have I missed some ITK stuff?


To me that means we have either
A. Been advised to drop the case as we don't have a good chance in court.
B. The Premier League have assured us that our sponsorship deals will pass the FMV checks, so in return we have dropped our legal challenge (which to me sounds like we've been bought off, and I'm not happy one bit with that either)

People are getting the idea that it is a victory from the three journalists who have covered this whole saga from the outset. All three journalists believe that this paves the way for our sponsorships to be approved. Much gets said about the reliability of sports journalists on here and, to a great extent, I agree with their adversarial views of them. Nevertheless, on this particular issue, Keegan, Ziegler and Lawton have proven themselves to be reliable. Furthermore, it has been confirmed that City have entered into a settlement and have not merely dropped the case. This would surely imply that both the PL and City are getting something of value.

 

[HelloCity]

I think they did it both times. The first they amended the rules, which the second finding declared were null and void. Then after that they voted and passed new rules, which we said we would challenge. But then settled on.

If you think about it, that makes sense. It wouldn't make sense for us to accept rules as valid, that the panel had already determined null and void, that would be a backwards step. But new rules after that, yeah they are up for grabs both ways.

At least how I remember the timeline, but I could be wrong too.

Here's what happened -

City believed the entirely of the rules were null and void following the first commentary from the panel.

The PL then had new amended APT rules voted though based on the panel's findings.

The panel later confirmed the rules City had originally challenged were null and void - confirming City's stance.

City believed the newly voted through rules were also unlawful and set up a new legal challenge.

 

[Bluearmy]

The Mail and Times both quickly argued it was a 'win' for City, with a bit more colouring in. Which is either 'informed presumption' through contacts with clubs, or just their own interpretation and guesswork. But as far as the (worth pointing out, joint) statement goes, yeah it doesn't touch on any of that. Stefan and others rightly point out, for us to have accepted that, we must have got something in return. Whether or what that is though, we might never know.

I have argued this since yesterday, that the statement is framed in such a way that you can't really read 'a win for City' from it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't believe there is one necessarily, btw. Just that taking it from the statement is pure guesswork.

Yep i think thats fair as we stand today. I guess if the Etihad deal gets passed at some point, then the cat will be out of the bag then!!

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

If people on all sides are spinning this news, just you wait till 115 drops.

 

[Mighty men]

Waiting until the 115 news to drop? thought it was going to be during the international break? Or is that the international break in September 3025?

Does this actually go on forever?

 

[Blueknows]

That's how I have read it, Looks like the Premier League have gotten us to accept the amended rules as lawful. That's all the statement said. Where are people getting this great victory from? Have I missed some ITK stuff?


To me that means we have either
A. Been advised to drop the case as we don't have a good chance in court.
B. The Premier League have assured us that our sponsorship deals will pass the FMV checks, so in return we have dropped our legal challenge (which to me sounds like we've been bought off, and I'm not happy one bit with that either)

So if the club announced tomorrow that the new Etihad deal was a record breaking 1.5b + you still wouldnt be happy ?

 

[Blueknows]

Waiting until the 115 news to drop? thought it was going to be during the international break? Or is that the international break in September 3025?

Does this actually go on forever?

the red cartel would love for it to drag on forever

 

[Coatigan]

Here's what happened -

City believed the entirely of the rules were null and void following the first commentary from the panel.

The PL then had new amended APT rules voted though based on the panel's findings.

The panel later confirmed the rules City had originally challenged were null and void - confirming City's stance.

City believed the newly voted through rules were also unlawful and set up a new legal challenge.

The only thing we differ on is when the amended rules we challenged were brought in. My recollection (could be wrong) was after the 'null and void' ruling.

That is also the only one that makes sense to me, as if it was before, why would we settle on them being valid, if they were already ruled unlawful.

 

[wolviedinho]

Anyone going to investigate the illegal rules put in place by the premier league?

Why did they stop city’s commercials but waved through shareholder loans?

A city win is great, new improved deals will allow the club to keep a competitive edge over the like of Burnley -:)

It’s all murky anyway.

Next…115

 

[Coatigan]

Yep i think thats fair as we stand today. I guess if the Etihad deal gets passed at some point, then the cat will be out of the bag then!!

That's the conflicting bit.

If the rules were null and void, as ruled on, then the Etihad deal can't be passed anyway. If the rules are valid and binding, then the Etihad deal being passed either means it was always valid, or, the settlement involves a possibly dodgy trade-off. Which in itself might not be a win the club would want out of this.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Anyone going to investigate the illegal rules put in place by the premier league?

Why did they stop city’s commercials but waved through shareholder loans?

A city win is great, new improved deals will allow the club to keep a competitive edge over the like of Burnley -:)

It’s all murky anyway.

Next…115

Share holder loans can be another financial lever that can be pulled by City if needs be, so best to keep that option open if other clubs are using it.

 

[nmc]

Need to announce the Etihad deal ASAP to show that in fact we won the argument it will leave everyone in no doubt who won.

Don’t think that’ll happen. The Etihad deal is in place. The escalator element has probably been amended upwards - so it’s hugely lucrative for City but don’t see why we’d announce it - just take the money…. and let the Red cartel fume in the background.

 

[wolviedinho]

Share holder loans can be another financial lever that can be pulled by City if needs be, so best to keep that option open if other clubs are using it.

Best say nothing then incase we need it.

File that away with selling our women’s team.

The rules have become a bit of a mockery.

 

[Saddleworth2]

The Mail and Times both quickly argued it was a 'win' for City, with a bit more colouring in. Which is either 'informed presumption' through contacts with clubs, or just their own interpretation and guesswork. But as far as the (worth pointing out, joint) statement goes, yeah it doesn't touch on any of that. Stefan and others rightly point out, for us to have accepted that, we must have got something in return. Whether or what that is though, we might never know.

I have argued this since yesterday, that the statement is framed in such a way that you can't really read 'a win for City' from it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't believe there is one necessarily, btw. Just that taking it from the statement is pure guesswork.

You can't read it from the statement. You can read a great deal more from the fact the matter is now 'settled'. Premier league had a great deal more to lose than we did on APT 2. It was a 'free hit' for the club and that they have settled means they have been given something to their advantage.