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

Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Apparently we're bribing everyone to sort this too. Strange we never similarly bribed the PL to not bring the charges in the first place and also bribe them to make the APT rules to our liking in Feb.
I can only assume that as we couldn't get our sponsorships over the line our brown envelope fund was exhausted.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is the red flag of all red flags from KFA’s.

If we had the ability to bribe our way out of it, then why didn’t we bribe to not have the rules in the 1st place, or even have rules that assist just us.
Why would we only bribe at the final stage of a process that sees the clubs reputation dragged through the mud for years/decade.

It makes no sense… which is the point. If anyone states that, their views can be ignored as insane and ungrounded in reality.
 
This is my favourite part of the Times report

City secured victories in seven key areas. Crucially, the panel deemed the rules to be unlawful, and in breach of competition law “by object”, a serious and damning infringement akin to price-fixing by cartel members.

Akin to price fixing by cartel members. Who would ever have thought that to be the case? ;)
 
manimanc said:
Why does the without paywall link never work for me?
Click to expand...
No idea sir but as now in the public domain think I can post the full article

Premier League chief executive Masters, left, and Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the City chairman
Matt Lawton
, Chief Sports Correspondent

Tuesday October 08 2024, 9.30am BST, The Times
Manchester City have accused the Premier League of “misleading” clubs with “inaccuracies” in its verdict on the legal dispute over rules governing commercial deals between clubs and related companies.
In an escalation of the row between league officials and the English champions, City’s general counsel, Simon Cliff, has detailed the club’s objections to a summary of the landmark case that was sent to top-flight clubs on Monday.
While City claimed what they considered an important victory when an independent panel concluded that key elements of the rules were “unlawful”, the Premier League issued a counter statement insisting it welcomed an independent tribunal’s findings because it had rejected the majority of City’s legal challenges. In the statement, the league said it would continue to operate its rules with changes that “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs”.
• Man City victory as Premier League’s sponsorship rules declared unlawful
But on Monday night Cliff wrote to the other 19 clubs — as well as the Premier League — with a detailed dismantling of the 1,200-word statement that was signed by the league’s chief executive, Richard Masters.
In a letter seen by The Times, Cliff has described the summary of the panel’s award as “not correct” and warns of further legal disputes if clubs bow to pressure to make some swift amendments to the rules on Associated Party Transactions (APT).
An emergency meeting of the clubs is due to be held next week but it will take place against the backdrop of this war of words as well as the continuing hearing into City’s 115 alleged breaches of financial rules.
Cliff tells clubs that the Premier League’s “summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies”.
“Of even greater concern,” Cliff adds, “is the PL’s suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next ten days.”
The league said that, after the two-week private arbitration hearing in June, the tribunal had actually backed its APT rules, identifying only a “small number of discrete elements . .. which do not, in current form, comply with competition and public law requirements”.
Masters signed off the Premier League’s 1,200-word response to the decision

Masters signed off the Premier League’s 1,200-word response to the decision
TOM DULAT/GETTY/PREMIER LEAGUE
Cliff said: “When the PL consulted on and proposed the original APT Rules in late 2021, we pointed out that the process (which took several weeks) was rushed, ill-thought-out and would result in rules that were anti-competitive. The recent award (conclusion of the panel) has validated those concerns entirely.
“The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC’s [Manchester City’s] position is that this means all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021.
“In recent correspondence, the PL agreed with MCFC that this is an issue which will need to be resolved by the tribunal. It is therefore remarkable that the PL is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules.”
• Seismic verdict for football that leaves financial rules in tatters
A warning from Cliff then follows, suggesting there has been a loss of trust in the league.
“We will be writing separately about this to the PL but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction,” he writes. “Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator.”
Cliff then makes a further series of points. He states that the tribunal’s 175-page ruling “does not contain an ‘endorsement’ of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were ‘necessary’ in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls”.
He says “it is not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies ‘certain discrete elements” of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements”.
Pep Guardiola’s side have been Premier League champions for the past four seasons

Pep Guardiola’s side have been Premier League champions for the past four seasons
MICHAEL REGAN/THE FA VIA GETTY IMAGES
“On the contrary,” Cliff adds. “The APT rules . . . have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.”
Cliff says, therefore, that “it is not possible for the PL to continue to assess APTs ‘in the normal way”. He then cites how the Premier League’s summary states that “Manchester City was unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge”. Cliff adds: “This is a peculiar way of looking at the decision. While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons.
• Why judgment could be bad news for Man City’s Premier League rivals
“It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason. In the event, the tribunal found the APT rules are unlawful for three different sets of reasons.” Among those, perhaps most significantly, Cliff reminds the clubs the tribunal found “the APT rules are discriminatory because they exclude shareholder loans”.
“If any member clubs have any questions about the award, we would be very happy to assist them as best we can,” Cliff concludes.
The Premier League declined to respond to City’s letter to clubs publicly but privately insist there will be no vote on amendments to the APT rules at next week’s emergency meeting of clubs. They are also understood to reject City’s claim that their response to the arbitration panel’s judgment was misleading.

ll
 
Articles on the Telegraph website this morning spinning it like we haven’t really achieved much with this. Even a reference to our club website highlighting just the one page and ignoring the 160 or so others and it’s not really damaging to the PL.

How come none of the mainstream media are reporting this as City smashing the PL and making life tough for our rivals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.