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

[Gorton_Tubster]

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

This is REALLY important to you isn't it.

Truth be told, in the years leading up to this point slbns input has been invaluable. Much more than others. People get things wrong, maybe you have here. Just move on though.

 

[Vic]

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.

Is it? How do City claim the judgement mean the Rules are null and void if "the Rules are unlawful" just means the individual Rules on which the Panel said City succeeded. The phraseology "for no other reason" doesn't on the face of it seem to qualify the ruling that the Rules (as a whole) are unlawful.

(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason;
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason

 

[SSL2]

What did I call wrong?

For starters, you reposted this tweet. So I presume at the time when you reposted, you were in agreement with Tariq?

I've have respected/agreed with you on many points for years now, but in this particular case, I find your stance very odd indeed. Your unwillingness to back down from your viewpoint that city haven't gained any significant victory in this hearing, is just plain bizarre.

 

[slbsn]

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.

First of all we are a key member of this PL so the City's desire for change is to be considered against that backdrop. Second, the "enemies" in the room haven't changed - they will be the parties voting on new rules. Third it is clear the tree is standing on PSR, FMV and APT (of some sort). There is simply no basis to think the clubs will agree no regulation and nor would we want that. We are at the top table.

So we are fighting around the edges by definition and assisted by law which is inherently uncertain on complex and evolving areas of sport and competition law and the interaction. Even if the PL no longer existed, do you really think the Super League teams would not largely replicate the UEFA and or the PL regime on financial restrictions? Of course they would. City most likely want a wholesale change of the leadership of the PL - that is understandable given the allegations made against them but we are still part of this family and all successes in cases like this have to be contextualised in the sense that we need the PL to succeed for our own success.

 

[Cobwebcat]

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’m not sure we did. I took the ruling to mean City could try again after the unlawful elements were corrected?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Sure but he also said we (City) are attempting to become the new cartel, are you equally cool with this?

Yes it’d be sweet as fuck if we became the cartel ;)

 

[slbsn]

For starters, you reposted this tweet. So I presume at the time when you reposted, you were in agreement with Tariq?

I've have respected/agreed with you on many points for years now, but in this particular case, I find your stance very odd indeed. Your unwillingness to back down from your viewpoint that city haven't gained any significant victory in this hearing, is just plain bizarre.

No I retweeted it as an important counter balance to the other briefing.

I am not backing down from my position because....

get this

I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT HAVING READ THE DECISION.

 

[nmc]

I think there's an element of reputation management for Stefan. He wrote off City's chance of winning anything with this challenge so he's naturally playing down our success.

Stefan and Richard Masters following the same agenda then?

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Is that Ricos grandad ?

 

[give it to gordon]

I thought City were never against ATP as a concept. The only thing City wanted was the the rules within ATP to be legal.

Some clubs want illegal rules