City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[domalino]

Carry on!

Nobody is listening.

Someone asked if there was anything the PL actually won on, I simply relayed the thing they did win on.

If you want to be a twat because I answered another blues question then be my guest.

 

[Luddite_Blue]

Remember how this was reported at the beginning?
‘City suing the premier league’
‘It’s disgraceful’
‘We’re ruining football’
‘How dare they sue the PL just because they don’t agree with a rule’
Well here’s mine and everybody associated with City’s response.
UNLAWFUL!
Cunts.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

That they don’t involve the interest free loans as APTs was part of the 2020 rules too, and I’m not sure they’re going to easily get agreement to just include them from enough clubs.

Think this has a fair bit to run yet.

it's either remove them or come up with a legal solution that's agreeable with the majority. Anything else is asking the PL to be handing cash out in a tribunal again

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Doan Roan is a dithering cock. absolutely useless at presenting anything

He’s also a massive ****.

 

[Pam]

and somebody knowledgeable who can advise on the dangers of cozying up to an illegial and corrupt cabal

Are you joking,? If the Marx Brothers were still alive, that's who they'd recruit. Or Laurel and Hardy.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.

It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.

People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.

We took action because of the 2 additions.
Mere semantics - but definitely a City win.

 

[bridgeno1]

It wasn't arbitrary.

Talk about missing the point.

It was arbitrary. APT transactions were based on historical prices as opposed to taking current market factors into account. Seems pretty arbitrary to me

 

[Pam]

He’s also a massive ****.

 

[John Wayne]

The legality of APT as a concept was upheld, just not the 2 most recent additions. City argued the whole thing was unlawful and failed.

It’s not arguable that was a major victory for the PL, if City had succeeded in that there’d be no APT rules right now, and as it stands we’re just back to 2020 rules.

People can argue about whether City thought they’d actually win that argument or not, but the fact is they made the argument and lost and the PL is in a much much better position than they’d be if that claim had been upheld.

That's exactly right. I would argue, however, that the club most likely knew that the whole concept of APT would not be thrown out. But to win on the two most-recent amendments, ie Nov 21 and Feb 24, represents a substantial victory. The PL is in an invidious position now because I can't see a scenario whereby interest-free shareholder loans, that don't need to be repaid, can co-exist with an FMV assessment of APTs.

 

[bridgeno1]

Aside from the newfound scrutiny and the expense of doing so.

And also other shareholders agreeing to dilute their own holdings as a result.