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

[WestGorton]

I'm not. Bloom is a ****.

Like Sullivan who is disowned by West Ham supporters

 

[nmc]

Why do they need an emergency meeting. I thought the PL won the case!

In theory the final positions of last years PL could be redrawn if Brighton, Arsenal and a few others would have failed PSR and retrospectively get points deductions. What a fucking mess

 

[Manc in London]

The 'tyranny of the majority' that was dismissed out of hand and laughed at (by those unable to understand 'democracy' and 'fairness' in terms of governance) doesn't seem so ridiculous now :) After all, it seemed the majority acted in an unlawful manner. Democracy is not always fair or infallible, kids. For goodness sake, some were saying this over 2,000 years ago.

 

[Don Karleone]

Hey, that's mine!

It's my twitter profile pic now. Many thanks.

 

[Claytop]

Don’t make me like Lawton ffs…

 

[BlueAnorak]

All I'm seeing from the MSM is, City had a couple of minor wins. We failed on everything thing else because it's deemed lawful.

Just like CAS, the MSM still avoid the amount of times NO EVIDENCE was qouted. We will always be the ones that "got away with a techincallity."

The MSM - BBC especially - are ignoring: UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE. The report is quite clear about the way we were treated. We cannot win and will always be cheats.

What did you expect?

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

It's my twitter profile pic now. Many thanks.

You rotter!

 

[supercity88]

I think upon a little reflection the extent of City’s victory depends on the club’s objectives. If it was to destroy APT (which I highly doubt) then it’s correct to say it’s somewhat limited, although still material. If it was to recalibrate the rules (which I expect it was) then the success would have to be, at the very least, characterised as highly successful.

However, what cannot be open to debate is the extent of the PL’s defeat. A de facto public authority having a finding that its rules were unlawful, as was the way they were applied, is huge. As are the findings of procedural irregularity and unfairness.

To fail to understand this is to fail to appreciate the function of an authority such as this, the laws of natural justice and the burden and standard of proof required to establish such findings.

This following from the Leicester shambles further underlines this organisation is not even close to being fit to oversee a multi-billion pound industry that has attained huge strategic and commercial importance to the UK.

That should be the story, but instead all we have is mental gymnastics from the media about how neither side won - when one of them manifestly lost.

Excellent post.

Considering the timings, it was the rules introduced after Newcastle's takeover and subsequent direction of travel that City took issue with.

On that basis, whilst we threw everything we had at the PL, the objective would have been to reverse those changes and ensure our growth strategy wasn't severely hampered by rules we deemed to be unlawful and that unfairly dismissed our proposed sponsorship deals.

The PL now have to provide evidence for refusing to accept those deals and you'd suspect they'll struggle. If they do fail, we sue for damages, or leverage the position on their charges.

We also sit back and watch the PL have to somehow get a majority vote to introduce a lawful set of rules, despite them hampering certain clubs.

It's definitely job done.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Third time lucky for the rule makers at the PL? They will be shitting in their executive boxes at the Emirates, Anfield and Trafford whenever anyone mentions the world 'lawyer'!

 

[meltonblue]

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?

That’s not quite right. Interest free loans are only an issue due to the implementation of APTs. Once they implemented rules around that then they should also have had APT rules applied and been assessed for FMV.

Thing is, everyone’s gone so far down the rabbit hole in trying stop us and in this particular case Newcastle, I think fans of other clubs in particular don’t realise the consequences. I don’t think the PL should be looking to crack down on interest free loans, aside from if to convert them to equity instead. Either of those options should be seen as more palatable than clubs being charged interest by their owner. Not in the crazy world they’ve concocted though.