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

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

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a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of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.

As a certain bespectacled Germanic person would say BOOM…

 

[freshie]

Hoisted by his own petard

 

[halfcenturyup]

So again, it’s bollocks and leaves all avenues open, pure speculation on what is and will be a landmark case, further rulings by the IC to come, this will be what’ll defines APT.

Really disappointed in your views on this, not because they go against what most City fans want, but you seem to be scrambling around looking for back up to your initial views on the APT, which as yet are and were incorrect.

P.S. I don’t expect you to be to disheartened with my disapproval ;)

It wasn't a legal analysis as originally portrayed, it was just a simple journalistic piece stating what we already know. The interesting part was the reference to KC's opinions, but that was "one" said, "some" said, "others" said. If it was a Lawton piece we would be ripping the anonymity to shreds.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The very idea that a benchmarking process can look accurately into the value proposition of sponsorships to global corporations (whose evolving business models & future plans they cannot understand) is simply laughable imo. It’s like nailing smoke to a wall. Overlay Regional/Geopolitical realities onto the global growth of the EPL and many corporations will want to associate themselves with the dynamic and mega-rich Gulf States. The “evidently” approach would at least mitigate against some of the crudeness inherent in benchmarking. How can Masters and his merry band at PL HQ manage the complexity of these issues - at least Government through Regulation may have a chance of doing so. The bigger picture is there may be a few hiccups along the road but no way are City going to lose here, nor in the ongoing 115/129/130 charges. Buckle up blues.

Great post. I'm really at a loss to understand how the PL can hope to use a simple database to regulate sponsorship values.

A company that's less well known in Western Europe (or other regions) and wants to build brand awareness in those regions, will presumably be happy to pay more for that than a company with a existing presence. And if it's a B2C brand, the sponsorship will potentially have more of an impact than if it's a brand like United's last 2 sponsors, Team Viewer or Qualcomm.

I could potentially understand Team Viewer, who are primarily a B2B brand, trying to build brand awareness but what's in it for Qualcomm?

But I'm not sure I share your confidence that a government regulator could do a better job.

 

[Cobwebcat]

View attachment 134433




View attachment 134434

This is the bit I don’t get (the last two paragraphs in the second link) and I suspect most don’t either.

It pains me to say it but my take was the same as the PL on this point. I was surprised to see City had interpreted it as the whole thing is null and void.

@slbsn Any ideas?

I can only think that City are seeing this as an opportunity to strike a blow rather than follow the precise guidance as the judges seem to be saying sort out the errors and the rest is OK.

 

[Centurions]

Right understand now, the Premier League will have not seen the email as it was not sent directly to them but was forwarded by Arsenal with amendment's that said City think Master's is an idiot and sleeps with a night light on.

Corrected.

 

[cheekybids]

It’s a long time since I’ve listened to talkSPORT (so long, it was before Jordan had a show on there) but I get the gist that he’s been very anti-City and always been a ‘state-owned’ this ‘115’ that, berk. So for him to be using it as well is another win.

Jordan still described City as owned by a nation state. I think the criticism of Stefan is people falling for the vitriol of Jordan aimed at his disappointment of their dealing with City & the calmness of his view of what’s happened. Cut through the PR the emotive articles & slightly ahead is a very good point. However I enjoyed Samuel’s article more, it’s a layman’s rant just as we get annoyed with Nick Harris.

I always thought the reasons why lawyers always seemed so calm was they always got paid (handsomely) but I think it’s the ability to stay on point.

I’d hate to be advised without all the risks considered.

 

[johnny crossan]

..I just don't see this large City win. I'm not even sure I see this as anything but a minor event that will have little to no bearing on anything going forward. ...

Really? Why do you suppose the PL prevented publication of the judgment for 26 days (when City wanted it out on day one)? Could it be its controlling redshirt mafia realised their attempts to hobble their rivals by illegally preventing companies investing in them while spending billions on their own teams was unlawful?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Great post. I'm really at a loss to understand how the PL can hope to use a simple database to regulate sponsorship values.

A company that's less well known in Western Europe (or other regions) and wants to build brand awareness in those regions, will presumably be happy to pay more for that than a company with a existing presence. And if it's a B2C brand, the sponsorship will potentially have more of an impact than if it's a brand like United's last 2 sponsors, Team Viewer or Qualcomm.

I could potentially understand Team Viewer, who are primarily a B2B brand, trying to build brand awareness but what's in it for Qualcomm?

But I'm not sure I share your confidence that a government regulator could do a better job.

Only this.

But imho the regulator won't be anywhere near detailed operations like FFP, FMV etc, nor should it be, but ensuring firstly that rules are legal and secondly that they are taken for the benefit of the sport as a whole.

And thirdly, that the PL doesn't have moron running it.

 

[oldius]

This is the bit I don’t get (the last two paragraphs in the second link) and I suspect most don’t either.

It pains me to say it but my take was the same as the PL on this point. I was surprised to see City had interpreted it as the whole thing is null and void.

@slbsn Any ideas?

I can only think that City are seeing this as an opportunity to strike a blow rather than follow the precise guidance as the judges seem to be saying sort out the errors and the rest is OK.

The APT rules ARE null and void.
That doesn't mean to say that they cannot be amended and reproduced, but like any operating document, if the document and its rules are declared unlawful, continued use of those rules and procedures is null and void, and definitely would open up a process of litigation.