Stephan I say that it wasn’t” quite APT” by that I meant it wasn’t referring to the 11 cases but there is a sort of link in that it was blocked because of the PLs association with parties who were / are in direct competition with those associated parties.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Tim of the Oak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 18,604
I do like Stefan’s contributions on Talkshite. We were routinely slaughtered about FFP/FSR before them.
I haven’t seen this week’s TS recordings. I think it comes back to what GDM said many pages back. To oversimplify, if we wanted our pending sponsorships to be treated lawfully and more reasonably, we’ve won. If we wanted to bring down the APT system, then that will need further clarification from the judges. Most of us didn’t think we were going for a knock out to begin with.
I haven’t seen this week’s TS recordings. I think it comes back to what GDM said many pages back. To oversimplify, if we wanted our pending sponsorships to be treated lawfully and more reasonably, we’ve won. If we wanted to bring down the APT system, then that will need further clarification from the judges. Most of us didn’t think we were going for a knock out to begin with.
Last edited:
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Just listened to you on the 93:20 podcast now I understand what you have been saying and thanks for an excellent explanation of thingsIdiotic response.
Talksport give me no guidance what to say and would LOVE me to say the most extreme things imaginable.
I would urge everyone to try and listen, especially those who have a negative view of Stefan. I know it’s behind the paywall but I would like to suggest to you, Stefan @slbsn, that you ask Ahsan to make it available free
Last edited:
Are we trying to run the league, or are we trying to show that the current incumbents are unfit to do so?
Well, the current incumbents who run the league are basically Arsenal, Liverpool and united, so......
spacecadet
Well-Known Member
Have we still got the cheating bastards on the run? Why have just 6 of the shitehawks been selected to discuss with Nandy?
mrbelfry
Well-Known Member
This definitely feels like an escalation. I don't know if we have a definitive end game other than flexing our weight a little. I don't see us getting APT's and FMV removed from the rules as they are in principle unlawful.
It maybe a case of just drawing a line in the sand and saying "no more taking the Mick". City went along to get along previously but have now decided that they gave an inch and had a mile taken. Feels like a very provocative way of doing that but I guess City will also feel provoked into this course of action. Perhaps this is a play for city to get more influence ie we told you it was unlawful so maybe pay more attention next time.
I did feel from reading the tribunal decision that the lady giving evidence from the premier league seemed very capable and credible. But it also seemed clear that the APT process was rushed and not well conceived from the outset given how quickly it got overwhelmed.
It's seems strange though that the two parties in the arbitration can come away with two very different understanding of what happens next. Would your arbiters not give some guidance?
It maybe a case of just drawing a line in the sand and saying "no more taking the Mick". City went along to get along previously but have now decided that they gave an inch and had a mile taken. Feels like a very provocative way of doing that but I guess City will also feel provoked into this course of action. Perhaps this is a play for city to get more influence ie we told you it was unlawful so maybe pay more attention next time.
I did feel from reading the tribunal decision that the lady giving evidence from the premier league seemed very capable and credible. But it also seemed clear that the APT process was rushed and not well conceived from the outset given how quickly it got overwhelmed.
It's seems strange though that the two parties in the arbitration can come away with two very different understanding of what happens next. Would your arbiters not give some guidance?
It's not exactly a forensic analysis, is it?Seems to me there is a good chance that analysis won't be holding up too well in a couple of weeks. We will see, I suppose.
City said this, the PL said that.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
WTF! Now that is a VERY VERY good point!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.
City could've agreed a sponsorship deal at £20m per season above the PL's FMV, but the sponsor ended up paying £20m less per season than originally agreed. If I was the sponsor & City returned saying the PL's FMV was found to be unlawful so can you pay the balance as originally agreed, I'd be telling City 'A deal's a deal mate. I paid as per the final agreed contract, so it's not my problem fella. Go take it up with the PL'.
On this basis yes, I'd think City would have a VERY good case for compensation AND compound interest too. It could go further. Who's to say we couldn't have bid more than £90m for Declan Rice, if this sponsorship money was agreed at the original price, hence why we now have an issue replacing Rodri who's out for the season?
This FMV decision could have caused untold amounts of damage to our business!
This could be the additional litigation that Cliff was alluding to in the email he sent to the 19 PL clubs.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Some of the responses to Stefan have been beyond ridiculous. I've not always agreed with what he says by a long chalk but then he's coming from the viewpoint of a lawyer first and foremost and I'm looking at it as a Blue only. I can only think that the worst culprits (calling him outright a **** for instance) are posted by either intellectually sub-par individuals or 12 year olds (or both).Just listened to you on the 93:20 podcast now I understand what you have been saying and thanks for an excellent explanation of things
I would urge everyone to try and listen, especially those who have a negative view of Stefan. I know it’s behind the paywall but I would like to suggest to you, Stefan, that you ask Ahsan to make it available free
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Because it's nothing to do with this case, I think it's mainly about the money flowing downwards through the pyramid. Wasn't the temporary measured blocked by certain clubs so they're still trying to come to some sort of consensus? There are clubs from the lower leagues there as well.Have we still got the cheating bastards on the run? Why have just 6 of the shitehawks been selected to discuss with Nandy?