What did I call wrong?
Yes that is clearly nonsense.What people don't want to hear (because it manifestly false) is his continuing line that the judgement confirming the PL has acted unlawfully and abused its position is insignificant and that their claim to be able to easily amend the sponsorship rules to comply is completely bogus. He should have a word with Mr Cliff and mend his ways.
That was his best guess as he didn’t believe that the PL would have been likely to implement unlawful rules. There was very little info in the public domain to know what the outcome was.In his expert opinion he thought we would lose this case.
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.
It's nothing to do with PL rules. Tony Bloom is owner of Brighton and if he buys a hospitality facility that's a RPT. Lending them a few hundred million should probably be declared as a RPT.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?
I think some posters are saying the rules are only slightly illegal.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!
Boom.
Interesting to hear the thoughts of some on here on this.
Who won? I have been asked at least 6 times today. Purely because the Premier League played it down as a small matter of incorrect rules that can easily be rectified.I was just about to comment similar to @Ric .
Stefan has to use the judgement to make a professional opinion. From the publicly available information it would be quite easy to build a narrative of a win for either side, it does depend on the lens and which points you deem more important. If you look around, many lawyers have been cautious to lean either way.
City will say 'we won the most important arguments which now allow us to put sponsorships through, see FMV judgements and seek compensation'.
The PL will say 'we managed to defend the majority of the legal arguments, clubs will still need APT approval prior to the deal taking place etc...'.
This City letter sent out isn't public, so impossible for Stefan to add that to the equation, especially when it was barely known about when he jumped on TS this morning. He has to use the facts available, his reputation depends on it.
For example, the Chelsea situation, he wasn't to know that the PL's rules were so poorly drafted that they were essentially allowed to sell a hotel to themselves. (If you read this Stefan, I'm aware that the process was more complex than that and perplexing that it took them so long to ratify the deal).
He technically did say on TS a score draw, maybe slightly in City's favour.
Personally I'd lean towards City getting the more favourable decision as they've managed to show the PL acting improper which may help us in the short and long term. I think we got the key areas ruled for us which is what we wanted, the rest may have been a smokescreen to keep the PL busy. However, I can fully understand somebody saying it wasn't a perfect judgement for either party as we don't know that for sure.
City going strong with the letter suggests they believe the PL are well out of line but again they have more information than us. It is promising that the club have reacted this way.