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

[slbsn]

You ventured the opinion on one of your many talksport visits that we were highly unlikely to achieve any significant victories in the case.
If you still believe this then fine,but I think as more of this unfolds in the coming weeks that opinion will look even more ludicrous than it does now.

Just not true. Here is what I actually said and I stand by every word of it.


And just checking, have you read the 175 pages?

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

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!

They are trying to cover their arses after receiving a seriously damaging loss on the very aspects that City were challenging.

Apart from their paid shills in the media and the terminally ignorant on social media, the redshirt cabal and their lap dog Masters has been exposed and their control severely diminished.

City 10 - PL Cabal 1 ( in off the ref )

 

[Ric]

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.

I may have this wrong, but I didn't think the disputed sponsorships had been reinstated as such, just that the previous decisions regarding them had been set aside as procedurally unfair. They still need to be approved I think.

 

[Cobwebcat]

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

He said she said. It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t totally right or wrong. Everyone asks him to guess so he puts forward an opinion and you nail him for it? Give it a rest.

 

[schfc6]

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.

Fully agree. If he goes on all happy clapper. His personal and professional credibility goes out the window.
Then we are back to same one sided narrative.

 

[blueste41]

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.

Does "set aside" (the quote on the 2 sponsorship deals in the judgement) mean re-instated or that the previous rulings should be set aside and they are reassessed?

 

[blueinsa]

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.

Problem with media appearances, no doubt paid and I’m not slamming the guy or anyone else for that btw, is that they invite along editorial lines and you are expected to go with the flow so to speak.

I’m in complete disagreement with his or any other assessment this is a score draw or a narrow victory for us that changes little and whilst Talksport might want to trot that line and have guests say similar, it doesn’t make it true.

City have briefed this morning where they stand. Anyone not listening is a fool imo.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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.
My answer was make your own mind up. City can claim compensation for millions. The Premier League have to change their rules as they have been declared illegal. Clubs have to pay interest on loans designed to give them a competitive advantage aka cheating. I KNOW who won!

It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.

Only one party was found to have enacted unlawfully, has to rewrite its rule book possibly pay compensation.

That party isn't City.

 

[blueste41]

I may have this wrong, but I didn't think the disputed sponsorships had been reinstated as such, just that the previous decisions regarding them had been set aside as procedurally unfair. They still need to be approved I think.

Thank you, that's what I thought but then suddenly doubted myself after seeing Prestwich Blue's post.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

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.

Agree with this. Stefan is not an oracle, nobody is, or can be when dealing with the Prem and their continual refreshing of their creaking law book. Don’t force him off the forum with criticism. For sure point out where you disagree but I’ve listened twice to the TS interview and personally think it’s balanced and fair. If Stefan got his predictions wrong in places or is suggesting that it’s not a complete win that’s fine. He’s probably right.

There’s a reason why Prem Lge chairfolk /owners introduced the ‘no personal liability’ clause back in Feb. Even then they were worried about the veracity of the rules.

One of the biggest wins I see is that we have stood our ground and given the redshirt influencers a bloody nose. It’s all about cash to the clubs. They will think twice before they look to kneecap us again coz pretending that things like Competition Laws don’t matter in a their cosy private club has been called out.