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

[moggymoz]

"The Premier League, its rulebook and executives are facing a firing squad but are now asking to inspect the guns to ensure they fit professional standards. What a shower they are."
Martin Samuel today

https://archive.ph/LFW0m

12ft

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Let me get this straight.

So we stand accused of getting an unfair financial advantage by disguising something like £60m of funding as sponsorship revenue (yet to be proven).

While it turns out that half the league have been pumping hundreds of millions into their clubs through interest free loan agreements in a manner that has been found by a court of law to unfairly distort competition.

Yet because the latter was sanctioned discrimination, inserted into the rules by the Premier League itself and waved through by a majority of clubs, nobody batted an eye?

And the average fan on the street is under the impression we're the ones 'financially doping'?

Am I missing something, or is this not absolutely fucking outrageous?

 

[johnny crossan]

good to see, he should be going full Tonto for the PL now!¬
nota bene
"The Tribunal also made the following key decisions regarding City’s challenges to the PL handling of the EAG Transaction and the FAB Transaction:

EAG transaction: The Tribunal ruled that the Premier League’s decision on the Etihad Airways Group (EAG) Transaction was procedurally unfair. This was because the PL did not give City an opportunity to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis before making its final decision. As a result, the decision regarding this transaction was set aside. Importantly, the decision was set aside only on the grounds of procedural unfairness related to the lack of opportunity to respond.

FAB transaction: Similarly, the tribunal found that the PL’s decision regarding the First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) Transaction was also procedurally unfair. The PL did not provide City with the Databank transactions from other clubs, which were referenced in the Premier League Board’s Final Determination. Because this critical information was not disclosed to City prior to the final decision, the Tribunal ruled that the decision must be set aside. Again, this was solely for the reason of procedural unfairness due to the lack of access to the data.If these transactions are ultimately approved,
City may be able to claim damages if they can prove the unlawful rules caused such losses and rejections."

 

[Coatigan]

I’m not missing any point, a poster asked if the PL actually won anything at all and the answer is yes.

You can claim the club didn’t have a problem with the original APT rules, that doesn’t change the fact they just spent a lot of time and money trying to get them thrown out, the rules were on the line and we were unsuccessful, which is a win for the PL.

It might not be something the club are devastated about, but it’s ridiculous to claim that winning an argument at arbitration isn’t a win when the consequences of losing would have been huge.

They’re entitled to celebrate that because they’d be absolutely fucked if we’d won.

That's not how wither our statement nor even the PL ome reads. The panel upheld the need for there to be rules, and the concept of the rules. But not the rules themselves, as I read it.

'The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.' - City

'The Premier League welcomes the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system. The Tribunal upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective.' The PL.

The two are not mutually exclusive, and does read like the rules are the issue, rather than the idea of the rules.

 

[mancboy]

If they can have that without the interest, that would be better, no? And let's not forget fair value is fair value even without the APT rules.

Tbh i think fair value mite be the next thing to be challenged ive always maintained that very idea was on shaky ground and more so now

 

[blue for life]

Did we vote against the recent amendments to APT rules in February? That’s what we challenged wasn’t it?

 

[give it to gordon]

The thing I find hard to understand is things like if City go after the pl for compensation. Aren't City paying part of the compensation ? Or City are getting less money from the pl because the pl is paying legal and compensation bills to City or to fight City.

 

[halfcenturyup]

None as they haven't broken any rules that were in place at the time.

Haven't broken rules that were illegal at the time. Don't be so confident this won't have to be applied retroactively.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Another point, which may not mean much but might be relevant, is that City and PL were told on 26/09 about the findings yet it was the PL who delayed the announcement until today.

Obviously to try and find a positive spin on it. It’s taken them 12 days to come up with the sorry drivel that they’ve tried claiming today. Desperate cunts.

They were more than happy to rush the charges out back in February 2023 without informing City they were happening. City have been way too kind to the PL giving them 12 days to prepare something.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Did we vote against the recent amendments to APT rules in February? That’s what we challenged wasn’t it?

Yes