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

[Keeper!]

Take the accounts of all PL clubs back to when FFP, PSR & ATP were introduced.

Apply to same scrutiny to them as has been applied to City over the same period and include the impact/benefit of shareholder loans for the relevant period.

Not sure how penalties should/could be applied ( ideas please) because multiple clubs will fail the rules.

Set the record straight....

"Once and for all" !!

Some very interesting accounts here I would imagine

 

[Stoned Rose]

Has someone checked in on Nick Harris and ensured he’s got the Samaritans number to hand. I’m genuinely concerned about him.

He’s currently being cuddled and having his tears wiped away by John Bishop.

 

[Coatigan]

I was reading the reaction on a Newcastle forum and they were saying, based on the size of the redaction, it was someone with a short name - no more than 10 letters.

Coinicidentally, the Arsenal vice chair who didn't shake Khaldoon's hand is called Tim Lewis.

So my money is on him and Arsenal.

I thought it wasstated in the martin samuel piece who it was.

 

[Blueboy73]

BBC Look North 22.35 just announced that Manchester City have lost their case against the PL re APT. One line then on to next story

Unbelievable. No other comments. Obviously not read the last page of the panels report on the case ???

More evidence that the BBC is not fit for purpose.

 

[Gray]

From the BBC, tucked away down near the bottom of their article.

However, on page 163, it outlines that declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages can be sought. This could be a financial problem for the Premier League depending on whether City pursue a claim - which they have indicated they will - and what the size of it is.

Of even greater issue are the comments on page 164, which point out a number of the Premier League's rules are unlawful as they don't include shareholder loans. It is this which forms the basis of City saying the Premier League has "violated UK competition law".

So we can claim relief and damages not the PL, and they allowed shareholder loans which makes their rules unlawful.

Think that shows we got what we came for.

 

[Blue Mist]

Again true. But it's most likely in that case there will be some "wins" and some "losses" for both parties, the same as in this one. Then we can all fight over who "won" again :)

I look at it like this.
A builder wants to build 100 houses. He knows he will get opposition from the locals and therefore the planners. He therefore submits planning for 150 houses. Everyone kicks up, there is an inquiry and he's told he can only build.....100 houses. :-)

City knew what they had to win, threw in more stuff and the inquiry said we'd failed in various aspects but we were correct and could build a 100 houses. OK I think I got mixed up at the end but you get my drift. We won the bits we wanted to win.

 

[Ctidpaul]

Anyone expecting any honesty or integrity from the press in reporting the findings in this judgment hasn’t being paying much attention to how the CAS verdict has been widely reported.

According to talk shites Manchester correspondent,the reason we won was because we have the most money,if we didn’t have all this money we wouldn’t have won all the league titles or have the best manager.funny how it’s changed now from the 60’s when littlewoods pools bank rolled the dippers,in the 80’s when the rags could outspend every other club,

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Our defeat was so bad the PL have called an emergency meeting to celebrate it...

One thing that made me chuckle in the judgment pdf was that after all the social media crap about our expensive lawyers the PL chose to ignore the advice of their own no doubt expensive KC and remove the word "evidently" from the clause relating to sponsorships being in excess of FMV, consequently making the amended APT rules in breach of competition law in the view of the panel.

This point was also recognised in the advice of Helen Davies KC: “The standard of ‘evidently in excess of FMV’ should ensure that it is only obviously abusive transactions that are prevented and thus that there is no unintended collateral adverse effect on competition.”

Going against the advice of a silk only tends to happen when emotion and sentiment overcome logic and reason. It’s a conscious decision to ignore the express legal opinion of someone you are paying huge sums of money to advise you. There has to be a much wider underlying motive to act in this way. No other logical conclusion can be drawn.

It also further underlines the PL’s fundamental gross incompetence.

 

[terraloon]

View attachment 134303

Wonderful debating skills displayed there !

 

[Rammy Blue]

Has someone checked in on Nick Harris and ensured he’s got the Samaritans number to hand. I’m genuinely concerned about him.

Why would you be concerned? Fuck him.