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

[Milesvk]

@slbsn I understand that the subject matter of APT does not align to the subject matter of 115, I think that is what your clearly stating. But could the 115 impending liability conclusion have an impact on the discussion for both parties to settle on APT. As an example, if a party lawyers have a good professional idea of what's coming down the line based on they know how good their arguments were during the process, could have been there a situation that settling now could be financially damage limitation.
Im not asking you if that has happened but could it happen. (Just trying to keep the optimism going on this thread)

 

[Coatigan]

It’s not a rule change, the PL has no power to unilaterally change the rules.

Whatever they have conceded, it has to be something within their gift.

Remember, this hearing was basically a free hit for City. The PL have to have offered City something worth having or City wouldn’t have settled.

This is not aimed at you specifically, @slbsn has used the term lots too.

I don't really see the significance of this 'free hit' arguement.

Surely the APT1 challenge was a free hit too. And APT2. And CAS, and challenging the 115 charges. Surely any challenge to anything is a 'free hit'. In the sense that of the club lose, they end up where they started anyway, which is what was claimed for this one with that free hit logic.

 

[Chappie]

Backed down is probably the wrong term but City did decide to end the legal case

How do you know that ?

 

[DJBusinesscake]

How do you know that ?

because City settled...

 

[CC1]

If you cant see that my initial appraisal of a score draw/narrow win for City was justified all along, I can't help you. City have got certain concessions in the rules but there is a very heavy APT regime that is only very subtly more favourable in 2025 compared to 2024. The optics are useful and forced the PL to settle APT2 to avoid risk but most fans of other clubs have no idea if City won or lost the whole APT chapter.

Obviously, I can't see the connection with 115 that everyone on here claims so perhaps I am missing something very important. Nobody has articulated in any convincing way to me but they could turn out to be correct.

But wasn’t our “win” at the first APT case when the rules we considered biased & -subsequently found to be illegal- were amended - thus that was what we actually wanted. We continued the process because although accepted, the rules are still illegal but they don’t affect us anymore. So we’re happy to move on

A positive surely?

 

[Gordyola]

I don’t see it as a big victory for any side. The PL got what they wanted and we got something in return. We don’t know what that ‘something’ is, but it clearly satisfied City, and if the club is happy with it then that’s fine with me.

The PL didnt get anything
They introduced APT rules following the take over of NUFC these rules are no longer in place following the challenged by City
The modified rules were introduced which City threaten further legal action, and shareholder loans are no included in PSR
The agreement as given City what they want (or enough) as they have dropped the action and also future guarantees. IMHO City weren't too bothered about the modified rules and were using the threat of the further action to get what they want

 

[slbsn]

This is not aimed at you specifically, @slbsn has used the term lots too.

I don't really see the significance of this 'free hit' arguement.

Surely the APT1 challenge was a free hit too. And APT2. And CAS, and challenging the 115 charges. Surely any challenge to anything is a 'free hit'. In the sense that of the club lose, they end up where they started anyway, which is what was claimed for this one with that free hit logic.

Not at all.

APT1 - reputational damage plus large adverse costs risk
APT2 - almost zero reputational damage given APT1 win and low adverse cost risk - asymmetric risk for the PL and Masters
CAS - defending a case not comparable
115 - defending a case not comparable

 

[Keith Moon]

If I had to guess they had it approved at a level they were happy with before they agreed a settlement not because of it.

If the Etihad deal is worth what you suggested yesterday, then Lord P and his team have certainly earned their money. In fact, we should pay ’em some more.

 

[slbsn]

The PL didnt get anything
They introduced APT rules following the take over of NUFC these rules are no longer in place following the challenged by City
The modified rules were introduced which City threaten further legal action, and shareholder loans are no included in PSR
The agreement as given City what they want (or enough) as they have dropped the action and also future guarantees. IMHO City weren't too bothered about the modified rules and were using the threat of the further action to get what they want

The post Newcastle APT rules are now in place. Plus more rules.

 

[slbsn]

If the Etihad deal is worth what you suggested yesterday, then Lord P and his team have certainly earned their money. In fact, we should pay ’em some more.

Yes but the FMV approved was probably always in the region of £1.2bn.

 

[slbsn]

But wasn’t our “win” at the first APT case when the rules we considered biased & -subsequently found to be illegal- were amended - thus that was what we actually wanted. We continued the process because although accepted, the rules are still illegal but they don’t affect us anymore. So we’re happy to move on

A positive surely?

a) they do affect City
b) City do not say they are illegal and they likely are not in any event post what APT1 said

 

[Coatigan]

Not at all.

APT1 - reputational damage plus large adverse costs risk
APT2 - almost zero reputational damage given APT1 win and low adverse cost risk - asymmetric risk for the PL and Masters
CAS - defending a case not comparable
115 - defending a case not comparable

What's the reputational damage of APT1 vs APT2?

Genuine discussion this, btw.

 

[slbsn]

What's the reputational damage of APT1 vs APT2?

Genuine discussion this, btw.

APT2 is pursuing something having been vindicated by APT1. APT1 much more aggressive move.

 

[Gordyola]

The post Newcastle APT rules are now in place. Plus more rules.

I thought that the panel ruled the APT1 rules illegal and hence why they had to introduce revised rules, including shareholder loans?

 

[Coatigan]

But wasn’t our “win” at the first APT case when the rules we considered biased & -subsequently found to be illegal- were amended - thus that was what we actually wanted. We continued the process because although accepted, the rules are still illegal but they don’t affect us anymore. So we’re happy to move on

A positive surely?

We can not change the basic fact that City challenged the new rules again, and were adamant and confident they were still unlawful. That can not be re-written now. It's not like they claimed, hey good effort PL, the rules are almost there but we'll have another free hit go at changing them further to see what happens.

The club were pretty clear on that they thought the changes were superficial and the rules remained unlawful, and they would prove that for the second (or rather third) time.

Maybe the club got what they wanted, maybe they accepted what it is because they knew they never could, and this was some level of a high ground stance. We might never know.

I am not wrong in saying that.

 

[Keith Moon]

Yes but the FMV approved was probably always in the region of £1.2bn.

City turned a £20m legal bill into a £500m payday. 25x ROI.

 

[Wardley Blue]

If we were assured that we will be treated the same as all the other clubs, that is an admission that we were treated differently before.

 

[Centurions]

If we were assured that we will be treated the same as all the other clubs, that is an admission that we were treated differently before.

It's not and also that comment came from a journalist, not directly from the statements.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

a) they do affect City
b) City do not say they are illegal and they likely are not in any event post what APT1 said

b) - This may be where some of us get confused. If I remember correctly the APT verdict said that three elements of the rules were unlawful so the Premier League applied a quick fix against City's advice. Subsequently the tribunal said the 3 unlawful elements could not be unpicked and therefore all of the APT rules were null and void. City then challenged those amendments (which may or may not fix the issue that the Premier League wanted to address)

I might be wrong but I think people are thinking null and void = illegal.

If i have understood correctly all that's happened is that City are no longer challenging the quick fix as they have met their objectives (I firmly believe partly by the revised Puma sponsorship deal).

From a City perspective there is currently nothing in the rules that they cannot live with so no point in expending more money on a legal challenge.

 

[waspish]

Stefan rarely comes out and says anything is a result for City. It might be to not look like he is biased or swings too far in our favour. This happened after APT1 where he called it a score draw LOL. If this wasn't a win for City then they wouldn't have backed down. We have thrown our weight about and made the prem look silly, publicly, on more than one occasion now. Most media outlets are reporting it as a success for City.

Thing is we don’t know all we have officially from the Man City website is “settlement” now what that is no one knows. We can all speculate in a positive or negative..