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

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

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.

It's a draw/ win for the PL too, so surely page 165 should describe how they can pursue their own claim against city?

 

[TonyM]

Regardless of the rulings made public yesterday, it is not a particularly good look for the Premier League that they have called Arsenal etc. as their witnesses in this case. That clearly shows some collusion between the league and "favoured" clubs in my book.

It just backs up City's argument that a small number of clubs are ganging up on City, Newcastle etc. to stifle competition not enhance it.

How is a rival club a witness anyway? Are they just stating what was said in a meeting? Or maybe part of a defence for the PL against an allegation of red corruption? Or the viewpoint of the damned (Everton) or a sympathy vote of a smaller club (Bournemouth)?

Maybe these clubs were just called up and had no choice but to attend? Maybe some even supported City's point of view but were called by the PL for specific actions?

 

[City Raider]

The ruling was sent to the pl and city around 2 to 3 weeks ago, it was sent to the other pl clubs yesterday, its impossible to think that one of them wouldnt have leaked it, also the ruling forced the pl to release a poorly and hastily put together face saving statement so it was always going to get out.

If this was the victory the prem are pushing, why did they need 2 weeks to get their ducks in a row? We were obviously leaking the judgement to the likes of Keegan and Lawton straight away.

 

[mancboy]

I'm not sure about the hastily bit? The ruling could only be released when both parties agreed, if the PL didn't have a statement ready they needed to simply not agree to it's release until they did?

If that statement wasnt hastily cobbled together the pl are in worse shape than we thought

 

[Coatigan]

But Arsenal still have a 200k loan. That now has to appear on their PSR submission.........

Sure, in the next reporting period. Once the rules get amended per the panel suggestions. IF they do.

 

[hammocity]

Have we won or not as the media are not really being clear & prem league seem to think we haven’t won

If we'd lost the media would be shouting from the rooftops. Ad someone posted this response is orchestrated and has taken 12 days of rehearsals, lies and fudging. If we had lost it would have been leaked within a day, it's clear and obvious Master's and his paymasters have been scratching along to implement damage limitation, he really is a nasty piece of shit, his puppet masters (no pun intended) are floundering big time, hopefully the beginning of the end for a knob jockey who only got the job because of his "connections".

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Barney Ronay is a mendacious ****, made clear by his claims that the PL statement and ours were "notable for their contrasting tones":

The Premier League went for airy and vindicated, not angry just sad. Manchester City stuck with terse, hostile and finger-pointy.
So on the one hand we have: “The Premier League welcomes the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system.” But wait. What’s this? “The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful.”

He obviously missed the bit where our statement opened with:
"Manchester City Football Club thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitral Tribunal for their work and considerations and welcomes their findings."

Terse, hostile and finger-pointy, my arse! Go fuck yourself Ronay!

I assume that's 'terse, hostile and finger pointy' in the same sense that the judge was at the end of Harold shipman's trial?

 

[Gordyola]

The PL stated that loans given by directors did not have to be declared for PSR. This helped Arsenal and others comply with the rules.
It's now been ruled illegal and the PL state it only counts from now and will not be backdated.
If it's unlawful and has been for 3 years, how can they just ignore the loans ? That in itself sounds unlawful. In other words they've failed PSR for 3 years.
Further, even if it starts from now, I assume Arsenal will have to declare any outstanding loans and could therefore he in deep shit. Can anyone enlighten me.

The way I see this is, in commercial terms something only becomes unlawful when tested in court

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

They can't even get that right. Shareholder interest free loans is only one area where the rules (in this case the original 2021 rules and the 2024 amended rules) were declared unlawful. Many of the changes (around what the panel called pricing and the burden of proof) from 2024 were also declared unlawful, as were some of the procedures around access to the database. Shoddy stuff.

 

[supercity88]

The overwhelming majority of clients follow the advice they are given, although sometimes reluctantly!

I wrote a few weeks ago that I have great confidence over the 115 charges because I don't feel like anyone within the City boardroom would be more motivated by pride or through seeking revenge that they'd ignore legal advice that told them to strike a deal or get things resolved out of the courtroom.

And similarly, when you look at the issues the PL has had in both our APT case and with Leicester, you can see the same situation doesn't exist for them. The Leicester loophole was a glaring error. They either didn't get legal advice on that, or if they did, they went to a pretty shit firm. With our APT case you can see behind the scenes just how much pressure is on the PL to stifle us, and others. They did seek legal advice but then tweaked the wording, critical wording that their lawyers were then not consulted on.

They might have won on some of our more ambitious arguments, which can easily appear far-fetched in court. But we won the critical elements that we'd have been aiming for when we first brought action. You flip the burden on the charges to the PL and the majority of the charges are far-fetched. When you consider the justification is some hacked emails and the defence will be robust, audited accounts and testimony from club execs I just don't see how any arbitrator would side with the PL on anything.