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

[blueste41]

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.

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.

 

[Colthekid]

Seen a lot of comments around from "journalists" and fans of other clubs that it wasn't a win for City as we only won a handful out of the 20(?) odd complaints that we raised at the tribunal. A Villa fan at my work gave me a classic analogy... (& a bit of a history lesson!)

Look at the Battle of Jutland in the 1st World War...

The Royal Navy's largest battle since Nelson at Trafalgar over 100 years earlier.

Numerically a German victory as they sank more British ships than the Royal Navy sank German ships (14 totalling 113000 tons, compared to 11 totalling 62000 tons), however, strategically a Royal Navy victory as the result was the German Imperial Navy returned to port....& never left for the rest of the war, removing a serious threat to Britain for good.

Just goes to show that quality is better than quantity (at least that's what I tell the Mrs!),

Here endeth the lesson! :-)

 

[SilverFox2]

I think upon a little reflection the extent of City’s victory depends on the club’s objectives. If it was to destroy APT (which I highly doubt) then it’s correct to say it’s somewhat limited, although still material. If it was to recalibrate the rules (which I expect it was) then the success would have to be, at the very least, characterised as highly successful.

However, what cannot be open to debate is the extent of the PL’s defeat. A de facto public authority having a finding that its rules were unlawful, as was the way they were applied, is huge. As are the findings of procedural irregularity and unfairness.

To fail to understand this is to fail to appreciate the function of an authority such as this, the laws of natural justice and the burden and standard of proof required to establish such findings.

This following from the Leicester shambles further underlines this organisation is not even close to being fit to oversee a multi-billion pound industry that has attained huge strategic and commercial importance to the UK.

That should be the story, but instead all we have is mental gymnastics from the media about how neither side won - when one of them manifestly lost.

Thanks for posting your thoughts.
Seems to me as a layman RE legal matters that City won by overturning the illegal and unfair points but failed in an attempt to allow the PL to still be in charge of changing them.
By that I mean the Panel are giving them chance to obey their own rules in future.
As you say a victory for City with the PL needing to ensure legality before rule changing rather than blaming a simple vote result.

 

[Eds]

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.

If we chop off some branches and then the PL prune it, there isn't much left of the tree hence why it's a bigger win for us than the PL, no?

 

[BlueAnorak]

The Premier League clearly want to add DISCRIMINATORY to UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE - the very strong words used in the tribuneral judgement.
Law courts and tribunerals take a dim view of messing up a second time.
What bright spark thought it was OK to discount loans in 2021-2024 and not sponsorships in the same time period?
Honestly Masters should be sacked on the spot for approving such patent bollox so quickly.

I'll reword that - just sacked for approving it. After reflection, It matters little if it was quick or slow.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Jordan used the word ‘cartel’. We’ve come a long way in a relatively short time.

Very significant this.

When he said it earlier he referred to “the cartel” and my head nearly fell off.

That’s not us on here being myopic city supporters, that’s a guy on national radio who’s been in and amongst PL football at the coal face and has seen how things work.

He’s a **** of the highest order but he’s right about this.

Shame it took him years to have the balls to say it.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

I think you're missing the point. Apologies if I don't have any crayons available to simplify it for you.

Oh, well done, how awfully amusing!

 

[nmc]

How much longer can Masters cling on ?

He’s the Chris Grayling of football.

 

[HelloCity]

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.

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.

 

[rabby]

Or he could just accept he's someone who called it wrong initially but hasn't the cojones to accept that and move on.