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

[halfcenturyup]

Based on what? The analysis was from leading sports law silks and partners. What do you know that they don't?

I know the situation is moving quickly and it very likely hasn't been finished with the 175 page report they have seen.

But yes, I am sure it's a very good analysis of what they know at the moment.

Could be wrong, of course and I will admit that (if anyone is interested) in a couple of weeks if I am. No worries.

 

[slbsn]

The same article that states the rules are easily fixable ie tows the PL line? Do you believe they rules are easily fixable and if so why?

It doesn't say that.

It says "The League has said it will be easy to update the APT rules by way of club vote to comply with these technical and procedural issues that the tribunal pointed out. City argues that all the rules are now unenforceable and it is for the tribunal in a subsequent hearing to decide this, not the Premier League’s 20 clubs."

 

[cheekybids]

Apparently they deliver end-to-end custom consulting solutions that are meant to compete.

Which means they are full of shit :)

Yeah I’ve sat listening to twats like this for years.

Simple fact is if we employed them to find a reason why we want 20% increase on our main sponsorship Etihad. They’d come back with a bells & whistles presentation on why it was justified.

The fact that they do this for our competitor is possibly a conflict of interest.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Unusual for Ziegler that he isn’t creating a narrative which way it will go, just reporting on facts that there is more & it will be explosive.

I can’t imagine or hope City wouldn’t throw dynamite like the Cliff letter if they didn’t feel it was backed with facts.

If it's explosive then it's bad for the PL. He, Samuel, Keegan and some others are clearly being fed this stuff and that is very un-City like. The club won't be doing that from a position of weakness.

All imho, and may be complete bollocks of course :)

 

[SWP's back]

Why?

Because he’s GC of one of the largest teams on the planet and will have only sent that letter after full discussions with the rest of our legal team.

Out of interest, why wouldn’t he?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I believe that THEY understand it better than us, yes

So you agree with the PL and think that the rules are easily fixable presumably within the next 10 days like the PL. Ummm thats a lot of trust in the PL Damocles and an interesting take imo.

If that's the case I wonder why they got the rules so wrong in the first place. Wrong as in just not legal?

Remember Leicester winning their appeal against the PL who were found to have wrongly enforced their PSRs in that instance.

It's not exactly a great track record and endorsement of their abilities in my opinion? But obviously you and the Lawyer have a different take. Fair enough.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yeah I’ve sat listening to twats like this for years.

Simple fact is if we employed them to find a reason why we want 20% increase on our main sponsorship Etihad. They’d come back with a bells & whistles presentation on why it was justified.

The fact that they do this for our competitor is possibly a conflict of interest.

Tbf, I think everyone uses them. Haven't City? I am sure they can compartmentalise.

But you are right, they are consultants, they give their clients what they want as far as they can.

Lawyers and consultants :(

When do the accountants get involved :)

 

[OrigamiNinja]

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?

Perfectly plausible. My question would be…do we like that behaviour? I’m delighted that we have had a win in the APT case but I wish we didn’t continually push these AD deals to a point where they can and are being challenged.

Let’s say what you’ve suggested is true and we complete the deal(s) now. What happens if/when the rules are updated and “evidently” or something to that effect is reinstated in the rules and our deal is then deemed to be evidently above FMV?

 

[halfcenturyup]

So you agree with the PL and think that the rules are easily fixable presumably within the next 10 days like the PL. Ummm thats a lot of trust in the PL Damocles and an interesting take imo.

If that's the case I wonder why they got the rules so wrong in the first place. Wrong as in just not legal?

Remember Leicester winning their appeal against the PL who were found to have wrongly enforced their PSRs in that instance.

It's not exactly a great track record and endorsement of their abilities in my opinion? But obviously you and the Lawyer have a different take. Fair enough.

Tbf, it's an easy analysis to make based on what is in the public domain, at least officially.

I just can't shake the idea that there is much more going on behind the scenes and, from the club's approach if nothing else, it may be good news for us.

 

[cheekybids]

If it's explosive then it's bad for the PL. He, Samuel, Keegan and some others are clearly being fed this stuff and that is very un-City like. The club won't be doing that from a position of weakness.

All imho, and may be complete bollocks of course :)

It looks like we are working with a few journalists. I know Stefan said Panja was connected & he obviously had some briefing ahead of the release of the findings. So no reason Samuel hasn’t been briefed in advance of the findings.