Search results

Well that was not City's argument in the case which unequivocally sought a declaration that APTs were unlawful completely. So it is a stretch to argue City did not seek to abolish APT. City laid out 6 arguments for the APT regime being unlawful by object. So, the premise of your...

Hang on, I thought the APT challenge was a major win for City?

Not really the same thing.

No I don't think he knows what he is talking about. Of course, City dropped the challenge over retrospective treatment of shareholder loans a) because it was always pointless and b) because that is a consequence of the settlement. It was pointless because no club could possibly have been treated...

Establish if APT (as opposed to RP) - the PL summarise well: "What constitutes an Associated Party of a Club is set out in detail in the Premier League Rules (Rule A.1.25) and includes third parties that are in the same group of companies as a Club, have common ownership or board members with a...

And potential compensation but as I previously explained this was never very material.

I've explained already. Quite esoteric improvements in the process and the wording of the rules. Stuff most people wouldn't even notice had the case not happened. Subtle things that reduce the possibility of wrong refusals of FMV approvals. Plus maybe some minor compensation and a win for our...

Loans are a massive red herring. No real difference between a shareholder loan by a 100% owner and an equity investment. Shareholder loans affect City - more than United. Which is why we originally voted to exclude them Other 2 arguable.

They would be in a position they half expect to be in so wouldn't have put much weight on such a commitment. If it happened at all given it was worth very little. So City would have to have agreed to a settlement factoring in that such soft commitments may well be worthless.

A slightly better position overall. But it is pretty esoteric - FMV is now a "could" test and the burden is not on a club to prove something is FMV. But to get that City have closed the door on the establishing APT is conceptually unlawful (APT1 said it was not) and can never realistically...

I don't agree. So many of these arguments are simply myopic, often delusional takes. Such as believing City have sat on a positive 115 decision for months. Or do you no longer believe that? If I agree with someone, I say so. If I don't I'll explain why. After the tenth time or when someone...

They will not have been able to change the rules or commit unilaterally to do so. Nor would they "trade" an approval of Etihad that wasn't approved by the rules. This is why I believe the Etihad deal was probably approved anyway in advance of the settlement and any proposal re rule changes was...

Because every £1m+ transaction needs to be disclosed and the APT ones are subject to FMV review under an extensive set of rules

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

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

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

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

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

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...

100%