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

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I believe that THEY understand it better than us, yes

Clearly I disagree with this.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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?

I think the comparison between Cliff and any legal professional extraneous to the process is a valid one, as he will have a much better command of the facts and will fully understand what the issues are.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Haha, we're trying to run the league, that is funny!


The point about APT is interesting though, seems to be confusion about the structure altogether now. Quite clear that it won't be a quick fix at an emergency meeting that the PL is hoping for.

It sounds like we've got them by their short and curlies.

 

[City Raider]

So we’re heading for another tribunal hearing? Any ideas on timeline?

 

[blueste41]

The article didn't make that connection. It was couched as "City argued the rules were unlawful" but "The PL disagreed".

The Tribunal say the Rules are unlawful. As an article purporting to explain that, it failed.

It specifically mentions (twice) that the tribunal found the rules breached competition law?

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

 

[NZBlue]

Sold his sole to the devil

New job as a fishmonger?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Cliff will have been briefed by Lord Pannick.

I think you’ll find it’s the other way round! (sort of, as the instruction went via Freshfields).

 

[Blue Maverick]

Oh I do wish Sunday Supplement still existed can you imagine Martin Samuels schooling Barclay and that greasy haired twat as their heads exploded.

 

[slbsn]

I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christian-smith-5345a9121?

His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR

www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.

He is excellent on their podcast and very clearly is well connected in the legal community in England. As the article states, he spoke to leading lawyers to build his article. The article is a well written and balanced piece as far as I can see unless he lied that he spoke to competition silks. He has certainly been ahead of the curve on who the players were on the legal teams, where the hearing was being held (The Lawyer got the pictures on Day 1) and had the exclusive that the hearing is a split trial.

I don't think he says anything materially different to your key point about it depending on what City were trying to achieve being the key as to whether they won in their eyes (which I agree with).

 

[OrigamiNinja]

Haha, we're trying to run the league, that is funny!


The point about APT is interesting though, seems to be confusion about the structure altogether now. Quite clear that it won't be a quick fix at an emergency meeting that the PL is hoping for.

Are we trying to run the league, or are we trying to show that the current incumbents are unfit to do so?