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

Vic said:
Not reading the last hundred posts, but I was trying to work out why City say the Rules are null and void (not a phrase in the judgment).

The overall conclusions (592-602) list the challenges where City succeeded and those ("all others") that failed, which sounds like they just have to tinker with the Rules.

But p. 164 is the judgment (with its ABD mistake - should be AND):
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE:

(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful

So I presume that if they're unlawful, they are all null and void.
Click to expand...
I have the very same question. Hopefully, someone qualified enough will shed some light into it.
 
paulchapo said:
Yes true, I got a little carried away myself at one point. It's such an emotive subject and as a club and fanbase we've been under what seems a never ending attack. It has been and is bloody wearing and stressful. Yesterday we were pretty euphoric that at last we'd given our detractors, of whom there are many, a bloody nose. I guess it was a little deflating to hear someone who was getting air time and was one of us pouring cold water onto our joy.
Click to expand...
Well put !
 
ComfySeats said:
hey, my only question in all of this is forgetting everything that is being thrown at you at the moment. If we are to believe the email has been sent by manchester city about the prem mis representing facts based on the final page of the document stating the below. ANd the prem end up changing their official statement. At the point do you also change your view point and see it as the over arching win that the club are stating, or do you stick to your guns.....no malice just interested?

View attachment 134357
Click to expand...
This is saying one relatively minor detail of the rules is unlawful. It is important but not a major problem for the PL. This is not City's major win. The major win is ripping up the 2024 amendments. The major loss is probably on the matter of the test of transactions being before approval rather than after. I see it like a tree - we have won the right to chop off some branches but not to fell the tree. The PL will need to prune the tree but not replant it.
 
slbsn said:
All a bit weird - I've been on here for 20 years, on Twitter for 15, writing on these topics for maybe 10 years, podcasts for 10? and watching City since 1982. So I do "it", in a lot of places. And I try and be objective. You do understand that the club are not trying to be objective don't you? It is not their job.
Click to expand...
Well surely the PL and City can't both be right. Can I ask what in City's email to the PL and clubs this morning do you agree with and what don't you agree with?
 
Has the letter we have written to the PL teams post judgement been leaked yet. If not i’m happy for some bluemooner to have a stab at what it contains whilst I sit on a rather elaborate throne stroking a cat and biting my little finger!
 
Ric said:
Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.
Click to expand...
Agree with this, with the proviso that in this particular aspect his views have been largely incorrect all the way through, now he just seems to be doubling down on much of that, fair enough, but he has still been mostly incorrect throughout the APT proceedings.
 
Vic said:
Not reading the last hundred posts, but I was trying to work out why City say the Rules are null and void (not a phrase in the judgment).

The overall conclusions (592-602) list the challenges where City succeeded and those ("all others") that failed, which sounds like they just have to tinker with the Rules.

But p. 164 is the judgment (with its ABD mistake - should be AND):
FOR THE ABOVE REASONS WE, SIR NIGEL TEARE, CHRISTOPHER VAJDA KC AND LORD DYSON HEREBY AWARD ABD DECLARE:

(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful

So I presume that if they're unlawful, they are all null and void.
Click to expand...
The panel didn't give consideration as to whether the rules are now null and void. They were asked to consider if in their current form they are legal. It's now up to the PL and it's members to decide what should be done to ensure the rules abide with UK law, if they are scrapped completely or just tweaked is open to conjecture.
 
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.