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

[halfcenturyup]

So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?

 

[bumbleblue]

So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?

It does and I hope you’re right!

 

[BlueMojito]

Did someone post the City letter to clubs? I can't find it.

The one that says "give us a call if you want it explaining..."

Here it is

https://archive.md/Qp8lE

 

[Cheer Up Peter Reid]

So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?

Does anyone know how many deals were reduced in value under the rules, and for which clubs (I can guess which won't be in the list)?

If I was a sponsor, I would probably be quite happy at paying less, so I can't see any deal that was reduced reverting to the original number. So depending on how many such deals there were the PL could be seeing some big demands for compensation.

 

[cheekybids]

So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.

Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;

What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.

Does that make any sense?

Does that mean it’s open for anyone to push through? Would we go to this trouble to hand an advantage to others?

 

[MadchesterCity]

Not if she turns out to be a serial killer :)

Or a he

 

[halfcenturyup]

Does that mean it’s open for anyone to push through? Would we go to this trouble to hand an advantage to others?

If the rules are indeed nul and void since 2021, then I guess yes, but I suspect City would get more advantage out of Etihad alone than any other club would get from any sponsorships, with the possible exception of Newcastle.

So maybe this is actually more serious for the PL than a few quick changes to a few rules.

I still think there is more going on here than any of us realise and the views from a few (clearly briefed) journalists are probably the best indication of City's position.

 

[cheekybids]

If the rules are indeed nul and void since 2021, then I guess yes, but I suspect City would get more advantage out of Etihad alone than any other club would get from any sponsorships, with the possible exception of Newcastle.

So maybe this is actually more serious for the PL than a few quick changes to a few rules.

I still think there is more going on here than any of us realise and the views from a few (clearly briefed) journalists are probably the best indication of City's position.

I think it’s a secondary advantage but not the main part. I think it’s absolutely highlighting that they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery ahead of this trial. Not only will they rush through unlawful rules at the behest of the chosen few, they’ll do it again & again. They aren’t acting independently for the benefit of the league.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Does anyone know how many deals were reduced in value under the rules, and for which clubs (I can guess which won't be in the list)?

If I was a sponsor, I would probably be quite happy at paying less, so I can't see any deal that was reduced reverting to the original number. So depending on how many such deals there were the PL could be seeing some big demands for compensation.

Iirc, the panel said 52 sponsorship deals had been reviewed under the APT rules, with 41 of them cleared (presumably favourably) within the appropriate time. So that leaves up to 11 that were amended, I guess.

I still find it amazing that the PL can insist a valid contract between two parties has to be changed because .... well, just because they say so. I can understand why the PL would want that but there must surely be huge problems around that with the impact on directors' legal responsibility to shareholders, not to mention jurisdiction (how can the PL force a company not subject to the PL rules to do anything? Especially in a foreign country. They can't even force them to provide information to an investigation).

I said earlier, in some way I hope Etihad reduced their sponsorship by say 10 million a year and then refuse to increase it again and the club sues the PL for that amount for each of the next ten years. 100 million would be nice.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think it’s a secondary advantage but not the main part. I think it’s absolutely highlighting that they couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery ahead of this trial. Not only will they rush through unlawful rules at the behest of the chosen few, they’ll do it again & again. They aren’t acting independently for the benefit of the league.

You may be right.

But the aggressive response from Cliff (or from the legal team through Cliff) is so unlike City it makes me think there is more to it all. Maybe a strategy of get one unlawful judgment, have all the APT rules voided, get the outstanding cases cleared and then get new, more acceptable, APT rules. The PL knows all this and started working with the club on it, but have tried to bluff their way out of it under pressure from the reds, and City are keeping them on the tribunal hook.

May all be bullshit, but came to me last night and ties up one or two loose ends. In my mind, at least :D