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

[HelloCity]

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.

I think you’re getting confused.

The new rules were voted in before the panel officially declared the old rules null and void - that’s a factual statement. Before that the panel had only given a summary of their findings. City’s assessment of the Panel’s initial summary was that the rules had been declared ‘null & void’ - this assessment turned out to be correct.

We started further legal action against the newly voted in rules believing they were also unlawful.

We’ve settled because they’ve likely given us what we want - some guarantees with regards to our sponsorships being reviewed fairly & timely and maybe with some compensation as well. Most likely the Etihad deal gets put though exactly how we want it to.

 

[blueparrot]

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.

I thought the 3rd challenge wasn’t to the APT rules going back to 2021 so much, but more rulings especially the interest free loans should be backdated and looked at as APT loans, as the rulings since the 2023 changes were null and void in the clubs opinion.. I’m thinking giving up on this backdating is the main concession we’ve made,and accepting 2021 Apt rules more or less going ahead wasn’t a big issue.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Coatigan]

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.

No I don't see it that clean. If the club weren't so publicly confident with their third challenge, maybe. But they were adamant the rules were still unlawful, and that they would prove that to be the case. It is a fairly big departure to then a month beofre the hearing accept the rules are valid and binding.

Was there a trade off? Most likely, but what that is, could be anything, from controling the statement to agreeing how a deal is assessed.

The other thing it then leaves unanswered is what happens with the costs to both parties. The second ruling opened the likelihood of the PL having to cover our costs. The settlement, if we accept they were right to begin with, probably closes that, and this was likely covered in the settlement agreement.

 

[GH64]

The PL definitely “won” this, because
1) they didn’t lose, we all agreed on something, and
2) there is an agreement that no ones going to say what was agreed.
Major improvement from their legal team.

 

[Coatigan]

I think you’re getting confused.

The new rules were voted in before the panel officially declared the old rules null and void - that’s a factual statement. Before that the panel had only given a summary of their findings. City’s assessment of the Panel’s initial summary was that the rules had been declared ‘null & void’ - this assessment turned out to be correct.

We started further legal action against the newly voted in rules believing they were also unlawful.

We’ve settled because they’ve likely given us what we want - some guarantees with regards to our sponsorships being reviewed fairly & timely and maybe with some compensation as well. Most likely the Etihad deal gets put though exactly how we want it to.

Maybe, maybe not.

We'd end up going round in circles, unless one of us can find a specific bit of news to set the timeline out. I fully acknowledge I am basing it on my recollection, and could be wrong. But till I've had the time to look into it more, I'll stick with that.

 

[Shirley]

'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

From that article…

One senior executive at a Premier League club, who wished to remain anonymous, said: "It's hard to say anything because we have no idea of the details of the settlement or any implications from it."

In other words it was made it up…

 

[HelloCity]

Maybe, maybe not.

We'd end up going round in circles, unless one of us can find a specific bit of news to set the timeline out. I fully acknowledge I am basing it on my recollection, and could be wrong. But till I've had the time to look into it more, I'll stick with that.

New rules voted in - Nov 24

Premier League clubs approve APT rule changes in blow to Manchester City

Premier League clubs approved changes to the associated party transaction rules on Friday in the face of opposition led by Manchester City

www.theguardian.com

Old rules declared null & void - Feb 25

Premier League sponsorship rules declared void in win for Manchester City

Manchester City have struck a substantial blow in their battle against the Premier League after a tribunal ruling on associated party transactions

www.theguardian.com

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Not sure what more I can do then. I support City, I do not believe we are hard done to by refs (anymore)
The OP claims we always get shafted by refs and we are treated unfairly. I disagree, whilst also stating that if you spoke to any fan, of any club they will tell you the same about their club. So apparently every ref has it in for every club. Funny that

Are you arguing that City can't be the victims of biased refereeing because Liverpool and rag supporters (among others) believe that they are? So when you occupy your City season ticket seat does this mean you don't actually watch the game, or take any notice of the refereeing or are you just winding everybody up?

 

[blueste41]

i was saying that certain teams are reffed differently and decisions given to others would not be given to city and of course they are treated differently to city, we see erling rugby tackled almost every corner and free kick which is entirely ignored but they invent an offence to give the rags a penalty, in all seriousness have you ever heard of sustained holding before?

If I believed the game was that openly corrupt I would walk away and stop watching. Of course a large percentage of every teams fan base believes they are "reffed differently" and you can't all be right.

 

[TinFoilHat]

The big take from the agreement is that it's confidential.

Until the New York Times 'leaks' it.

 

[Coatigan]

New rules voted in - Nov 24

Premier League clubs approve APT rule changes in blow to Manchester City

Premier League clubs approved changes to the associated party transaction rules on Friday in the face of opposition led by Manchester City

www.theguardian.com

Old rules declared null & void - Feb 25

Premier League sponsorship rules declared void in win for Manchester City

Manchester City have struck a substantial blow in their battle against the Premier League after a tribunal ruling on associated party transactions

www.theguardian.com

Then, if that is the case, the PL have clearly won.

Not just with this settlement, but everything from the first ruling.

Including their own statement version of the outome of the ruling, which many of us mocked.

Simply put, they were right (as was Stefan when he argies the same), and the club were wrong.

 

[blueste41]

Don't understand this at all. If we are in the right we shouldn't have settled. Or do we not give a fuck about fairness so long as we get our Etihad deal approved?

We (the club) never really cared if Arsenal saved 5% on interest by lending money from owners, the saving is small fry in terms of premier league spending/income. We brought the case because we thought our sponsorship deals should have been sanctioned, it now looks like they will so we win.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Check the dates again. City initially challenged the Feb 2024 amendments as well as the original 2021 rules. The initial APT1 ruling was handed down in Oct 2024 that certain of the rules were unlawful, but no determination on null and void was made. The PL approved new rules in Nov 2024 and the club challenged them before the second APT1 ruling that the 2021 rules and the Feb 2024 amendments were null and void.

No judgment on the Nov 2024 amendments has ever been made. That was what APT2 was about. And that has just been settled.

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.

Favourable rate shareholder loans have to be repaid or converted to commercial rates in a transition period according to the November amended rules. So there should be no more favourable rate shareholder loans.

 

[blueste41]

'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.

www.bbc.co.uk

I actually agree with the other clubs on this, the PL is owned by its members and as such have a right to know what's happened-as do we the fans!

 

[oakiecokie]

Then, if that is the case, the PL have clearly won.

Not just with this settlement, but everything from the first ruling.

Including their own statement version of the outome of the ruling, which many of us mocked.

Simply put, they were right (as was Stefan when he argies the same), and the club were wrong.

Thats fucking 9 months old !!

 

[hoppy]

I actually agree with the other clubs on this, the PL is owned by its members and as such have a right to know what's happened-as do we the fans!

The Premier League management are a fucking shambles, and at some point the clubs should be questioning the competency of the board.

 

[oakiecokie]

I actually agree with the other clubs on this, the PL is owned by its members and as such have a right to know what's happened-as do we the fans!

It will all come out in the rinse.

 

[Coatigan]

@HelloCity, extract from the Times article posted earlier also seems to back your timeline.


'Why did City launch another challenge and what was their case?
The Premier League reacted to the initial ruling by proposing three quick amendments to the rules, keeping all the good stuff and just crossing out the problematic bits.
The majority of clubs (16 of the 20) duly voted through the changes with only Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest supporting City.
City’s argument was that minor tweaks to the rules were futile and, in February, a tribunal found that the three ‘unlawful’ points could not be ‘severed’ from the rest of the rules and so were deemed ‘void and unenforceable’.
It opened up the possibility that clubs could claim compensation for deals agreed in that period between December 2021 and November 2024 that may have been undervalued.
The Premier League attempted to brush this off, saying it had no impact on the “validity and effectiveness” of the new APT rules which were now in force.
City launched their next legal challenge against these amended rules maintaining their position that, despite the amendments to APT rules, they remained discriminatory and presented the same inherent issue as shareholder loans are still not held up against market value in the same way as commercial deals are.
That is the row that has now been settled.'

But that also backs the point that, if the club accepts the new rules it so openly challenged, those rules were ok to begin with, and the fix the PL mooted as a result of the first hearing was also ok, meaning their interpretation of the hearing was also ok.

 

[Coatigan]

Thats fucking 9 months old !!

And?