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

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

There is no question that Cliff has a better understanding of the case than me. By a mile. And obviously so. Likewise, he has the benefit of 2 weeks ruminating on the judgment, hours and hours of legal advice on the matter from Pannick and the rest of the team inc Freshfields.

But as I explained yesterday, these sort of letters and bombastic positions are common in litigation. It doesn't mean City are certain on all these points. In fact, the most critical element of the letter is that City and the PL have agreed in correspondence that matters will need to go back to the Tribunal - that appears to be factual.

All of that said you are comparing apples and oranges. I was being asked my objective view as to who won what. Simon Cliff is the GC of one of the parties charged with a) implementing a new regime b) concurrently defending the club vs the most serious allegations imaginable c) portraying confidence in the club's position. He is not trying to be objective.

As for the attack on my reputation? I doubt you have any clue whatsoever on that topic.

Happy with that - it reassures me that the hastily convened pl meeting next week is not an attempt to shift the goalposts.

 

[Blue Maverick]

There is no question that Cliff has a better understanding of the case than me. By a mile. And obviously so. Likewise, he has the benefit of 2 weeks ruminating on the judgment, hours and hours of legal advice on the matter from Pannick and the rest of the team inc Freshfields.

But as I explained yesterday, these sort of letters and bombastic positions are common in litigation. It doesn't mean City are certain on all these points. In fact, the most critical element of the letter is that City and the PL have agreed in correspondence that matters will need to go back to the Tribunal - that appears to be factual.

All of that said you are comparing apples and oranges. I was being asked my objective view as to who won what. Simon Cliff is the GC of one of the parties charged with a) implementing a new regime b) concurrently defending the club vs the most serious allegations imaginable c) portraying confidence in the club's position. He is not trying to be objective.

As for the attack on my reputation? I doubt you have any clue whatsoever on that topic.

So the points we won in that were unlawful how can that be quickly fixed by a vote? Surely they have to be lawful to be allowed through, if they do that then it puts us in a better position than before with more control which to me is a win, rather than just been told no and having no recourse.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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."

Good morning Stefan,
The second from last paragraph in that article has now been ammended from the original published version to include the phrase, "according to the league" I ageee with you its a more balanced less partial piece now.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This article is a misunderstanding of what City have written. It appears there will be a further hearing

I explained this yesterday here -

Yes, thanks, read that on Twitter. A good summary of what we know.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I've not checked, this is from memory, but didn't their comment say the rules could be easily fixed?

That's not a definite. That's a possible. I'm guessing they could be easily fixed if enough clubs agree to new rules quickly. They also might not agree though.

They did indeed specifically state that, but the sentence has now been caveated and they quote the PL as stating this. It's less partial.

 

[mattcity5]

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."

I mentioned after this post but without seeing it, that I thought the statement said it 'could' be fixed.

It clearly doesn't now, but it's how I interpreted it and then remembered it based on that interpretation. That point still stands. They can say it's 'easily fixable' all they like, but they are reliant on the clubs agreeing to any changes in a vote. No guarantee that will go the way the PL wants, so while it is an easy process to 'fix' the rules, their statement does give the wrong impression. They're clearly trying to show confidence and capability, but to some extent whether it's 'easily fixed' is out of their hands.

The PL are grandstanding and trying to appear in control, but how easy this issue is to fix is not up to them.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

There is no question that Cliff has a better understanding of the case than me. By a mile. And obviously so. Likewise, he has the benefit of 2 weeks ruminating on the judgment, hours and hours of legal advice on the matter from Pannick and the rest of the team inc Freshfields.

But as I explained yesterday, these sort of letters and bombastic positions are common in litigation. It doesn't mean City are certain on all these points. In fact, the most critical element of the letter is that City and the PL have agreed in correspondence that matters will need to go back to the Tribunal - that appears to be factual.

All of that said you are comparing apples and oranges. I was being asked my objective view as to who won what. Simon Cliff is the GC of one of the parties charged with a) implementing a new regime b) concurrently defending the club vs the most serious allegations imaginable c) portraying confidence in the club's position. He is not trying to be objective.

As for the attack on my reputation? I doubt you have any clue whatsoever on that topic.

Understood, thanks for posting.

 

[slbsn]

The suggestion amongst a few Chelsea supporters is that we have a couple of sponsorship deals stuck in process linked to Clearlake’s client base whilst not quite APT you may recall that the PL blocked a significant front of shirt deal that we had negotiated with Paramount + that was blocked

Paramount was nothing to do with APT. Irrelevant.

We know 11 deals took longer than 25 days. At least 3 of those are City. Some of the rest appear to be football APTs are mentioned in the judgment. There are very few other APT deals pending according to the information in the decision.

 

[Fordyboy46]

We are the bad guys again for challenging the prem league and for sending the email, that's the narrative the red brigade want to put on it

 

[OrigamiNinja]

By the time renewals come up, I imagine they would then be in the fair value ballpark.

You seem to be assuming the club is pushing the sponsors to pay more than the sponsorships are worth to them. I am not sure that is the case.

I believe (and it’s only my opinion) that the relationships our owner has with companies in AD means that when these discussions take place, the club is able to eke out every last drop of what is deemed FMV. I just think with all the shit we have had to put up with over the last decade, continually pushing to the limits is not helping matters.