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

That link is very revealing.

In summary it seems we are saying ATP is unlawful, all of it. So what if we didn’t win on a few counts. We only needed to win one for it to be unlawful.

We are bringing the house down. After years of frustration with our softly, softly approach, the gloves are now off. There is no going back.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Matt Lawton at the Times has seen the letter as well.
https://www.thetimes.com/sport/foot...mier-league-misled-you-over-verdict-khg78rcl0

Link wothout paywall here:
Click to expand...
City have their teeth into the flailing PL and are not letting this go - the the threat of further leagal action and, in so many words, a vote of no-confidence in the PL Executive Team is a joy to watch.
The press have largely gone quiet, for reasons previously satated - City are going to keep this on the back and maybe front pages :-)
 
1000010937.png

In the message, seen by Mail Sport, City’s general counsel Simon Cliff says bluntly: ‘regrettably the (league’s) summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies’.

‘Of even greater concern,’ Cliff adds, ‘is the Premier League’s suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days.

'When the Premier League 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 has validated those concerns entirely.’

Cliff informs clubs that the panel found APT rules, aimed at preventing clubs from agreeing inflated deals with companies linked to their owners, unlawful and that, contrary to the top-flight’s comments, the decision renders all of the rules ‘null and void’.

‘In recent correspondence,’ Cliff writes, ‘the Premier League agreed with MCFC that this is an issue which will need to be resolved by the Tribunal. It is therefore remarkable that the Premier League 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’.

It is understood that City have already received ‘multiple’ responses in support of the email from other clubs.
 
Semper aggressus said:
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?
Click to expand...
from the BBC

'Concerns that clubs could be hit with additional costs'​

BBC News sports editor Dan Roan
Both sides are claiming victory, and in truth the judgement contains something for both City and the Premier League.
League sources are emphasising the fact that most of City's challenges to the APT rules failed, and that the wider system was endorsed by the panel.
They also seem confident that the rules will be swiftly amended by the clubs within two weeks in order to make them lawful.
But the panel's ruling that the exclusion from the rules of interest-free loans from owners to their clubs (shareholder loans) was unlawful, has led to concerns that clubs could now be hit with additional costs that they were not anticipating.
This could mean some are in danger of breaching PSR regulations. The suggestion is that such loans will now be subject to commercial market rates of interest.
That could have major ramifications for those clubs that owe tens (or even hundreds) of millions of pounds to their owners.
The Premier League seems relatively relaxed about that issue, along with speculation that City and other clubs could seek compensation for any losses suffered by the rules.
On shareholder loans, league officials believe a fair market value analysis of such borrowings would be placed on the cost of the loan (i.e. the interest rate), not the value of the loan itself, and that the impact on clubs, therefore, would be minimal.
They also feel that such loans will only come into the scope of APT once the rules are amended, and will not be applied retrospectively, so only future loans will be affected.
However, BBC Sport has learned that City’s lawyers believe that not subjecting previous shareholder loans to a Fair Market Value assessment (while continuing to apply it to previous sponsorship deals) would be unfair, and that they may seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from doing so.
But there will be fears from some in the game that any weakening of APT rules designed to preserve fairness and competitive balance could lead to certain clubs being able to sign more lucrative commercial deals.
There is also the question over whether this could have an impact on the 100-plus charges the league has brought against City for alleged financial rule breaches. City deny wrongdoing, and a hearing into the case continues.
Whatever the consequences, what is clear is that this dispute has reinforced the sense of division among the clubs over the financial regulations they are subject to.
 
Really_here said:
from the BBC

'Concerns that clubs could be hit with additional costs'​

BBC News sports editor Dan Roan
Both sides are claiming victory, and in truth the judgement contains something for both City and the Premier League.
League sources are emphasising the fact that most of City's challenges to the APT rules failed, and that the wider system was endorsed by the panel.
They also seem confident that the rules will be swiftly amended by the clubs within two weeks in order to make them lawful.
But the panel's ruling that the exclusion from the rules of interest-free loans from owners to their clubs (shareholder loans) was unlawful, has led to concerns that clubs could now be hit with additional costs that they were not anticipating.
This could mean some are in danger of breaching PSR regulations. The suggestion is that such loans will now be subject to commercial market rates of interest.
That could have major ramifications for those clubs that owe tens (or even hundreds) of millions of pounds to their owners.
The Premier League seems relatively relaxed about that issue, along with speculation that City and other clubs could seek compensation for any losses suffered by the rules.
On shareholder loans, league officials believe a fair market value analysis of such borrowings would be placed on the cost of the loan (i.e. the interest rate), not the value of the loan itself, and that the impact on clubs, therefore, would be minimal.
They also feel that such loans will only come into the scope of APT once the rules are amended, and will not be applied retrospectively, so only future loans will be affected.
However, BBC Sport has learned that City’s lawyers believe that not subjecting previous shareholder loans to a Fair Market Value assessment (while continuing to apply it to previous sponsorship deals) would be unfair, and that they may seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from doing so.
But there will be fears from some in the game that any weakening of APT rules designed to preserve fairness and competitive balance could lead to certain clubs being able to sign more lucrative commercial deals.
There is also the question over whether this could have an impact on the 100-plus charges the league has brought against City for alleged financial rule breaches. City deny wrongdoing, and a hearing into the case continues.
Whatever the consequences, what is clear is that this dispute has reinforced the sense of division among the clubs over the financial regulations they are subject to.
Click to expand...
**** can’t even spell judgment correctly.
 
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.