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

[halfcenturyup]

Yes, mentioned that earlier, they’re going to get in a mess with what they do retrospectively. Highly doubt they’ll apply the loan interests, which is why I think this’ll end up back in tribunal again at some point.

If they don't it seems to me they will get in trouble with clubs who have suffered a financial loss from the unlawful rules since 2021 by, for example, not giving points deductions (and affecting table positions) for resulting FFP breaches.

Tangled webs and all that.

 

[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.