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

Dribble said:
So the long & short of it is (by my understanding) is, the PL brought in APT to stop sponsor companies associated to a clubs' owner, from agreeing inflated sponsorship deals as a way of getting money to the affected clubs through the back door. The thinking being this would unfairly distort the transfer market.

From City's viewpoint, we argued that the way APT's are judged is unlawful, because the PL adjudicate what they view as fair market value sponsorships, based on a database of previous sponsorship deals. HOWEVER, if a club disagrees with the PL's decision, they're NOT allowed access to the sponsorship database to challenge the decision.

On top of this, director loans aren't included in APT or PSR. Director loans currently held by Arsenal & others are interest free / very low interest, so City effectively argued why weren't these loans also considered to be a backdoor way of funding certain clubs. The independent review body found in our favour on these points.

It was also found that the amount of time the PL took to adjudicate against City regarding the Abu Dhabi bank & Etihad deals (2 & 3 months respectively) was unreasonably long, & found in City's favour in this respect.

City also alleged that these rules were created specifically to target owners from Gulf States, but the panel ruled in favour of the PL.

In terms of the legality of APT itself, the panel found it to have a legal basis, but with serious flaws with how it was constructed.

This is what's led to both sides claiming victory. APT remains, but must be amended so City & others can review the sponsorship database, & the PL must also include director loans in APT. OR the PL can scrap the lot & try coming at us with something else.

This is my short form understanding of the situation.
Click to expand...
^^^
 
As usual, the more I think about this, the more my opinions form and the more I see different aspects to this.

One of the reasons that the APT rules were introduced is that the cartel felt that we weren't properly declaring related parties in our accounts. This was despite the fact our external auditor presumably agreed that companies like Etihad weren't related parties.

So they introduced the concept of an associated apparently party after the Newcastle takeover, which is basically a related party with a clause covering state/government/public body influence. But they could have simply taken the view that any agreement over a certain amount needed FMV approval, regardless of whether it's an associated party or arm's length. While the tribunal rejected the idea this was discriminatory against us & Newcastle, their intention was clear in inserting that clause, given the ownership of us and Newcastle.

But the question is, did any club with owner loans at preferential rates declare these as RPTs in their accounts? If they did then that's OK and they're fireproof. If they didn't....
 
My overriding opinion after everything that’s come out is we were fully justified in taking this case to court, we have achieved our goal of showing the rest of the world how the premier league operates and how unprofessional they have been in certain quarters and managed to win big in some areas that as a club we felt were the most important.
However you slice it, City will be feeling far more comfortable than Masters et al this morning and that’s good enough for me.

Now onto the next one. Let’s smash the cunts.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Regarding the “major loss”, I do understand the inconvenience of pre-approval and that it relies on the Regulator acting in good faith. However, pre-approval, if exercised in a timely and fair manner, is a better process than a challenge or dispute after the event. I think City were being very optimistic with their challenge and probably are unsurprised they didn’t succeed. In any regulated environment, pre-approval is generally the preferred approach.
 
blueste41 said:
Sure but he also said we (City) are attempting to become the new cartel, are you equally cool with this?
Click to expand...

I think he is suggesting that City, and perhaps Newcastle , will have a stronger pressence and improved status with the PL and less subject to the control of the yank owned clubs with their completely different focus.

But I am not a mind-reader.
 
ufo said:
We should’ve hired a head gardener than wasting money on lord pannick.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha proper made me laugh out loud that post hahaha, am gonna go down to London and hunt pannick down and present him with a black and decker leaf blower and tell him, take that into the hearing and blow the bloody doors off lol!!
 
I am sorry but I don't see how in anyway this can be seen as a win for the PL.

The PL bring in APR rules.

City challenge them and the panel finds that the way the PL have implemented them to be illegal.

That's it end of! the word Illegal should end any discussion.

They now have to rewrite the rules. Which will have major implications for several clubs.

How is that in anyway a PL win?

It's not!
 
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.