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

[Man-chester copperpot]

Stefan has been relegated and Arsenal have been stripped of a couple of 2nd place finishes and a Charity shield!

Fan-bloody-tastic.
I can get some work done now
Cheers ;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Unlawful on account of being ..... and for that reason only.

 

[M23 Citizen]

 

[blueste41]

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....

I think it's been established that they didn't? I think it's also been established that the reason they didn't is because PL rules didn't require them to? So the tribunal ruling will only affect the future of how these loans are assessed?

 

[johnny crossan]

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.

What people don't want to hear (because it is manifestly false) is his continuing line that the judgement confirming the PL has acted unlawfully and abused its position is insignificant. Also his agreement with their completely bogus claim their sponsorship rules can be easily amended in order to comply. He should have a word with Mr Cliff and mend his ways.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

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.

I'd argue that it was one 'relatively minor detail' given the panel's summary. Yes, the overriding principal that the concept APT rules were not intrinsically unlawful was upheld (and I can't work out if we tried to claim that) but they'll have to change the rules as they stand, as you said.

We got two disputed sponsorships reinstated at levels that were presumably closer to our valuation, which is probably a large part of why we brought this action.

Also, while our challenges were dismissed on a number of points, many of those were around those two sponsorship deals. So the PL 'won' on those points but it was a pyrrhic victory as we won the 'war' with the sponsorships reinstated.

 

[Gundoggin]

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.

Good point this . MCFC have the red cartel media split on the outcome of yesterday’s news and even more so this morning. I believe this is a huge part of the battle we are up against. Even Simon Jordan was making complete sense this morning on Talkshite.

 

[supercity88]

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.

I struggle to see how you have reached that conclusion. That's not suggesting you are wrong just that my thoughts are quite different. Both sides can of course claim a win, and for the PL they have had confirmation that the APT rules are sound in principle.

But whilst City took them to court to fell the tree, using your analogy, there were certain branches that weighed heavy and were the true target. And those branches have been cut. In doing so, the PL are left with a tree that might not survive.

Remember that the PL had legal advice on the rules, then amended them without (or ignoring) that advice. Certain rules voted through have been found to be unlawful. Those rules were ones that caused City to lose out on lucrative new sponsorship. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than some gentle pruning to get a lawful version of the rules voted through. The amendments were clearly made to appease clubs who saw them as enabling City to potentially grow revenue. Removal of certain words was paramount to getting them voted through. To think the PL simply re-draft and then get sign off is naive. They either manage that, and City are likely to then secure new sponsorships, or they again introduce a set of unlawful rules. The emails City have issued to all clubs suggests the latter isn't an option they have.

Stepping back, it is who you perceive to be the bad guy. The PL is essentially doing what it is under pressure to do. Certain clubs have clearly forced through these rules. The PL possibly doesn't have an issue with a lawful version, but many clubs will. Between them, they're in a spot of bother.

 

[blueinsa]

I’m certainly no expert but it’s clear we have won.

What’s concerning though is the mad rush yet again from the red cartel and PL to get new rules over the line within 10 days which is clearly going to be aimed at us yet again.

Pleased to hear we have briefed the media we are onto this and have written to everyone explaining that further legal action will follow.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What did I call wrong?

Who cares? :)

More importantly, what do you make of Cliff's letter where he says correspondence between the club and the PL indicated that they were going to leave the status of the APT rules to the tribunal (or some such)? Not sure what means. Any ideas?