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

[horlock_was_super]

I went to watch him about ten years ago in Halifax. The then wife bought me the tickets for me, her and her twat parents.

Hell on earth.

An amicable divorce then?

 

[madloaf]

In what world does a 175 page legal document bring simplicity?

Perfect. They show themselves up constantly.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

Christian may be an Arsenal fan I suppose....

https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/

That article doesn’t even answer what he puts in the headline, he quotes unknown legal professional saying he may be an uphill battle for City to prove the APT rules are void and others who say they will wait and see, is this the lawyers version of ‘an unnamed club figure’, it is literally someone from a legal magazine giving his opinion.

The arsenal fan I suppose comment is at best flippant and at worse is making you look quite needy.

You took a stance that City would more than likely lose this APT decision, that has not been the case, what is still open to interpretation is what comes next, City have made their stance crystal clear and have some of the best legal minds working on it, as said, over the coming weeks and months we will see what amendments to APT rules occur, or don’t.

Apart from a few who have gone over the top in criticism, no one doubts you are a very knowledgeable legal professional whose stance on this particular APT case has been incorrect, as you stated, you didn’t have the case details in front of you, but you did offer your legal ‘opinion’, in mine and others opinion you are and have been proven incorrect, again, fair enough, I’m sure you didn’t win all your cases.

But, your continued stance is now looking a little silly (in my opinion), and you seem to be scouring the internet for people who seem to support your position, I could if arsed do the same and find legal professionals who disagree with your position on this subject, namely the legal team actually employed by City, you seem to be for whatever reason disregarding their very valuable experience and very knowledgeable legal expertise in all this (ultimately is their legal advice only what masters as far as City are concerned), all because your well thought out but ultimately incorrect stance has been shown to be incorrect, namely City would more than likely lose the APT case.

You are and we’re incorrect, no big deal, I and others still respect your very knowledgeable and considered opinion on the various legal cases City are involved in.

All the above is my opinion ;)

One more thing, best to not use absolute bell ends like Panja to support your position, the man is a vile lying **** and his views are toxic when it comes to anything City related…

 

[madloaf]

I mean, what a reach that is. Chief football correspondent. Not even sure I should give any attention to the clown.

Basically shits on every fan of the club, basically saying City could disappear and nobody would give a fuck. Talk about protecting the game for the fans whilst clearly forgetting about the fans of this club.

A really pathetic piece.

I'm not reading that. It's clearly very silly.

I would like to send him this though.

 

[levets]

If you read the thread Levets you'll see I did ask the question that the PL had a nominated representative which is what I read on here. I wasn't certain about that but there was definitely noise on here about it, I'm completely willing to hold my hands up and admit I'd been falsely advised.

No worries mate. City nominated a rep, UEFA nominated a rep and both City & UEFA agreed on the third rep. That’s what I read in the CAS document.

 

[sir baconface]

Simplifying all I’ve heard and read over the last 24 hours, a very plausible unfolding prognosis is:

- City to sue the PL for damages and costs
- Failure to agree APT or CSR amendments, and hence impasse, at next week’s PL meeting
- APT rules void until properly replaced, allowing Newcastle to seize the opportunity to press on with their plans
- Regulatory body to take over PL’s role.

I look forward to the grand PL victory party with special guests the BBC Department of Truth and Sir Tarquin Starmer.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

We never wanted to fell the tree. Just chop the branches that affected us.

You said as much yourself tbf, the myth that city wanted ATP thrown out as a whole.

The way I see it, City have won what they wanted/needed to.

 

[Norbiton]

That article doesn’t even answer what he puts in the headline, he quotes unknown legal professional saying he may be an uphill battle for City to prove the APT rules are void and others who say they will wait and see, is this the lawyers version of ‘an unnamed club figure’, it is literally someone from a legal magazine giving his opinion.

The arsenal fan I suppose comment is at best flippant and at worse is making you look quite needy.

You took a stance that City would more than likely lose this APT decision, that has not been the case, what is still open to interpretation is what comes next, City have made their stance crystal clear and have some of the best legal minds working on it, as said, over the coming weeks and months we will see what amendments to APT rules occur, or don’t.

Apart from a few who have gone over the top in criticism, no one doubts you are a very knowledgeable legal professional whose stance on this particular APT case has been incorrect, as you stated, you didn’t have the case details in front of you, but you did offer your legal ‘opinion’, in mine and others opinion you are and have been proven incorrect, again, fair enough, I’m sure you didn’t win all your cases.

But, your continued stance is now looking a little silly (in my opinion), and you seem to be scouring the internet for people who seem to support your position, I could if arsed do the same and find legal professionals who disagree with your position on this subject, namely the legal team actually employed by City, you seem to be for whatever reason disregarding their very valuable experience and very knowledgeable legal expertise in all this (ultimately is their legal advice only what masters as far as City are concerned), all because your well thought out but ultimately incorrect stance has been shown to be incorrect, namely City would more than likely lose the APT case.

You are and we’re incorrect, no big deal, I and others still respect your very knowledgeable and considered opinion on the various legal cases City are involved in.

All the above is my opinion ;)

One more thing, best to not use absolute bell ends like Panja to support your position, the man is a vile lying **** and his views are toxic when it comes to anything City related…

As a complete layman, I’d have thought the “blue pencil” test obviously fails because to be legal APT rules have to take into account shareholder loans, which involves a lot more than simply striking out offending clauses in the current rules?

 

[levets]

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.

That’s how I understand it too.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

There are more questions than answers...

The article in The Lawyer ends with this nugget...

As is often the way with cases like this, if you want to know who really won, wait for the costs decision.

So, why the delay re costs ?

Also the PL will have to reconsider the sponsorship deals they rejected ie Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank. So what are the PL doing, are they just saying "No, not at FMV rejected" or are the saying the deals should be capped at a maximum value of their choosing? Anyone know...

It's looks like if the PL don't sign off the sponsorships there will be another tribunal. Buy they are taking the piss because that means more months will pass without us receiving the funds to which we are legally entitled.