You ventured the opinion on one of your many talksport visits that we were highly unlikely to achieve any significant victories in the case.What did I call wrong?
Fan-bloody-tastic.Stefan has been relegated and Arsenal have been stripped of a couple of 2nd place finishes and a Charity shield!
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.
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?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....
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.