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

[HelloCity]

@slbsn

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.

www.bbc.co.uk

From City’s letter…
The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "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. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was “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.
"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Quick reminder as the morning draws to a close that you do not hate journalists or print media enough.
You think you do, but you don’t.

So how do you think this plays out from here? PL seem to think they’ll have replacements APT rules in place in days, got to be questionable at least?

I'm counting !!

 

[mattcity5]

I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.

I'm making some assumptions here, but from what I gather the delay in releasing the results was down to the PL side?

I think that this will have been due to them desperately trying to create a statement that made them look good (well, less bad!). I expect they were trying to word things pretty carefully.

I feel like if the PL genuinely felt they'd won, they'd have managed to get their statement out a lot quicker then they did. It would have been a much more straightforward job.

That's all just feels though, you're the guy who knows legal.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

I'm glad Stefan is out there offering a relatively balanced view of what are very complex legal and political issues. Imagine a situation where Talksport got a biased Liverpool fan on instead. Stefan is one of only a few people out there offering balance and objectivity via the media.

Remember, Khaldoon says he wants to deal in facts. That is exactly what Stefan does.

It must be a difficult gig going on TS when Simon Jordan could jump in any second to derail your flow of argument with his usual show boating.

Stefan is being invited on as an FFP expert. That's what he's doing.

This.

 

[eastmanc]

@slbsn

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.

www.bbc.co.uk

They are misleading everyone, everybody can see it as plain as day. If someone as biased as Simon Jordan is saying they have lost this case they have lost.

 

[mac]

Mate I have no sympathy for your club, none whatsoever. They, along with the other usual suspects, have tried to put our club out of business and smear every single achievement we have had since the takeover.

As a fan of that club however I do have some sympathy for you, even your more horrible gobby fans. As fans we are powerless what goes on behind the scenes. It's not the fans fault.

Fuck the tarquins. I hope rvery single prick is devastated. Cunts the fucking lot of them.

 

[Silva2021]

Stefan becoming full pundit, no fans seem to like there own.

For me we won on what we won, but it was never a huge case and nor did we want it to be.

Stefan is bang on the money, as he tends to be when he says stuff we like.

Do City want FMV gone is an interesting conversation, as we might but might not?

Do we want it to be more flexible and far less red tape (definitely), do we want it easy/ quick go do deals (yes). These are our wins.

City fans in this thread like detail, take that as 5% of TS audience and the rest believing we wanting to challenge these so that Etihad could sponsor us for a billion pounds a year. That would not be good for us long term (IMO). Do we want to be able to be sponsored for an amount reflective as our position as 1 of if not the best team in the world, 4 in a row, treble winners. Without PL and the red cartel moaning no history, empty seats etc. To now have PL having to show us why that is not acceptable as opposed to us justifying it makes a significant difference.

Plus, we have changed the landscape of let’s do this, that to can we do this, our voice will now be heard a lot more.

So I agree not much has changed and certainly to the outside world, but inside the circle I think City will be very happy.

 

[supercity88]

It was just a negotiation tactic. We have got everything we wanted from the case. Before February this year City have always supported financial regulation. Khaldoon has repeatedly stressed that all we have ever wanted is fair treatment. The PL sabotaged two of our sponsor deals and would not even allow us to discuss how they arrived at their decision. Independent Judges have now ruled this was illegal and unfair. The word I would use is corruption. It was a corrupt decision. It needs to be called out for what it is.

Thread is moving fast, but for context my post was offering an explanation as to why Stefan has taken the position he has and not reflective of my own opinion. The intention of the club is pure guesswork really. The timing gives a strong indication that we saw the revised rules as a step too far and were commercially impacted so took legal action. The fact we won, and our proposed sponsorship deals will have to be re-assessed is a win. And that, for me, was our main aim. But the case itself looked at the full rulebook and on the face of it the club tried to challenge a lot more than those rules, and were unsuccessful.

As you say, we want fair rules that enable clubs to grow commercially, within UK competition law. We've got that. So it's a win. The PL have to re-write their rules around those elements, and get the majority of PL clubs to agree and vote for them. Whilst the principle of the APT rules survive, those that stifled us will have to change. I can't see how you'd review that as anything but a City win. But I can appreciate Stefan's position that it's a bit more nuanced than win and lose.

 

[HelloCity]

I'm glad Stefan is out there offering a relatively balanced view of what are very complex legal and political issues. Imagine a situation where Talksport got a biased Liverpool fan on instead. Stefan is one of only a few people out there offering balance and objectivity via the media.

Remember, Khaldoon says he wants to deal in facts. That is exactly what Stefan does.

It must be a difficult gig going on TS when Simon Jordan could jump in any second to derail your flow of argument with his usual show boating.

Stefan is being invited on as an FFP expert. That's what he's doing.

From Manchester City’s legal council.

The Premier League's position that City were unsuccessful in the majority of its challenge is described by Cliff as "a peculiar way of looking at the decision".
He added: "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. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."
Cliff added that it was “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.
"On the contrary: the APT Rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law.

Cc @Silva2021

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’ve read it. I’ve spent most of the last 10 years in litigation (claimant and defendant). This bad tempered fundamental disagreement is normal. It’s genuinely held but it’s also inherently one sided. That’s not a criticism- it’s a fact. I can be certain that the PL really also believe they won.

It can be plainly seen from the carefully crafted and worded press release that the PL don’t believe they have won.