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

[remember arthur mann]

Samuel's saying it's not about profit and his glorious rag's could plough all their money back into the club.

 

[HelloCity]

Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?

Are you serious?

They’re not giving him actual real event news. They’re giving him negative spin to suit one side of an argument with the goal of smearing the other side.

You’d have thought City were going to hell reading his comments before CAS. How did that turn out?

 

[Damocles]

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.

But we don't know this yet, hence the need for patience. It is City's opinion that the APT rules for now are null. It is the PLs opinion that they aren't. It's the legal industry's opinion that we don't know yet and it depends but it seems on the face of things that it's possible to alter the specific clauses which means the rest of the rules are enforceable.

This seems to be the primary argument after the case and it's too early to plant flags and talk in the definitives.

To use an analogy if you've got a piece of government legislation, let's say the Data Protection Act, and one of the clauses in the law is challenged as being discriminatory in some way, you don't just throw out the entire piece of legislation and say the DPA doesn't exist at the moment. You just change that clause but the Act is still in practice and enforced. It's not exactly the same situation but it's not a million miles off.

The argument here is whether the judgment claims that the things that need changing are so baked into the whole set of rules that there's no way to amend them without wholesale redrafting. On the points that we've won on, it doesn't appear to be enough on the face of things.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

My American autocorrect says judgement so the IT overlords have ruled I'm afraid.

Mate, we've read the same things from these journalists about CAS and the like for years now, we know exactly how educated they are on these matters. I don't care if the lad is someone who chauffeured around a sports lawyer's second cousin, he'd still be vastly more qualified than these hacks based on osmosis alone. These are the people solely responsible for the "City got off on a technicality" narrative.

I'm getting away from the point here. The point that I was making is that I don't listen to sports journalists because they have no idea what they're talking about on legal issues. Not even a bit of a clue. And you can times that by a thousand in terms of what they write several hours after a 175 page technical document has come out and how that knocks on for everyone else. The only people worth listening to about legal issues are the legal community and those legally trained. You have you view and I appreciate that but from what I've read, it appears at odds with the general consensus of the legal industry who have expressed opinions. I tend to go with the general consensus in expert domains without compelling arguments. Almost all opinions fall on the "we'll see" side of the spectrum and I don't see any outside of the aforementioned sports journalists who are touting this as a large City win.

The one exception to this of course is Simon Cliff. But Simon Cliff is currently working under a legal strategy for one of the sides of the argument so not what I'd call exactly a fair source. Facts are facts and in the legal arena, facts are useless things to have. Everybody is trying to sell their interpretation of the facts that benefit them the most, and this is what I think Cliff is doing so I'll eye his proclamations with more scrutiny than professionals who are not involved in the case.

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. On the face of it, and this is just my opinion with all the caveats I've put above, the idea that the entire APT ruleset now needs redrafting or is currently null due to this judgment seems far fetched. It seems much more likely based on the wording that I've tried to understand that the blue pencil test will apply; they can modify these without having to completely rewrite the entire ruleset so the rules stand as is. I'd love for someone qualified enough to explain why that isn't the case and show me what I'm missing.

I'd even go one step further and argue that maybe all of the people I've quoted including yourself, the Professor and Stefan have jumped the gun a bit and we won't really know the impacts of this for a decent while yet because there's going to be meetings and redrafts and possibly tribunals and more legal action from us or other clubs and only when we've got some distance from it can we really see who "won" or "lost".

Even with all that, I'm not even sure what winning even means in this case. We own shares in the Premier League. We're a shareholder suing the board, why others want the company to fail based on that I can't really work out.

I agree with much of what you’ve posted here, and certainly (and I’ve previously posted in these terms) it’s difficult to know how successful City have been in terms of this action per se, without knowing what the objectives were.

However, from a strategic point of view I disagree about the implications of this, at least as things presently appear. If our long term strategic aim is to (further) discredit the regulatory body that oversee the club, because they have been acting against it in bad faith, then I would say there are many reasons to believe this has succeeded. Following from the Leicester debacle, it underlines the fact that this is an organisation that isn’t fit for purpose because it is grossly incompetent and/or acting in ways that are improper.

I disagree with the analysis of others because in my view (fwiw) you cannot dress up a finding of unlawfulness in relation to an organisation’s own rules in any way other than hugely significant. They have, once again, wholly misconceived rules which they have constructed and have custody of, which they impose upon other organisations; rules that have been found to be unlawful in ways that are significant. These rules are not some abstract small print, they are front and centre to the way the league is governed. I’m struggling to see how anyone can not see the significance of this, especially placed alongside the misinterpretation of Leicester’s status with those same rules.

I take on board what you say about counselling against a scorched earth policy (in the club’s best interests) but that has to be weighed against the many inferences of the conduct of the PL towards the club. I feel the club is well placed to evaluate this and act accordingly. The unusual existence and robust tone of Cliff’s letter suggests they have done this. They may have done so reluctantly, but out of a sense of necessity.

I have always been confident throughout the last eighteen months that the club’s judgement (correct spelling in this instance!) should be trusted. Moreover, the club wouldn’t have embarked in this course of action, nor sent the letter out, if it felt the associated gains would be nugatory, or even marginal. As that time has passed, it has become increasingly clear (to me at least) that the PL’s judgement, and the advice it has been receiving, has been severely lacking. That is also a material factor when evaluating what the judgment means.

Against all that, I feel that the club wouldn’t have responded in the way it did if it wasn’t supremely confident of the ground it was standing on, or the wider aims of the action, and if I was going to back any particular horse in this race it wouldn’t be the PL.

I therefore feel that the outcome of this action is far more positive than others have posited.

Whether I’m right or not, only time will tell.

And I agree with you that virtually all sports journalists are know nowt cunts :-)

 

[johnny crossan]

My understanding is that all current and past APT rules are void because they do not include the shareholder exemption. This presumably means you need to draft fresh rules to include this exemption.

The principle of APT is not unlawful, but the rules as drafted are. The new rules cannot be drawn up on the back of a fag packet like last time. They need to be properly thought out and stress tested otherwise they will be open to fresh legal challenge.

In this context City are correct. This is not a quick fix or technical tweaks. Similarly, the procedures for implementing APT rules have to be transparent, fair and even handed going forward. This is will also take time and require more resource from the PL.

Also declared unlawful because they are procedurally unfair

(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;

(iv) that the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not give MCFC an opportunity to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis prior to reaching its decision and for no other reason;

(v) that the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not provide MCFC, prior to the PL’s Final Determination, with the Databank transactions entered into by other clubs, which the Board referred to in its Final Determination and for no other reason;

(vi) that in making its decision with regard to the FAB Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64;(vii) that in making its decision with regard to the EP Transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of Rule E.64.

 

[mac]

Why all the bullshit aimed at Sbln. He didn't try to fuck us over. He is only giving his opinion. Ffs calm down you fannies

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Gill is regularly seen sitting next to Ferguson at Utd matches, he's the highest ranking English man at UEFA. Parry is head of the EFL and surely has some contacts still at Liverpool. What disqualifies them as good sources?

You have a lot to learn about the politics of football.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

There is nothing wrong with eking out every last drop of fmv. There is nothing wrong with signing multiple sponsorships in AD.

Don't let the bastards grind you down.

The section in the ATP report which examines City's blocked sponsorship deals shows clearly that City bent over backwards to be reasonable and professional at every stage. But there are pages and pages which show relentless obstruction by the PL's Legal Advisory Group. The PL wouldn't even discuss with City how they arrived at their detailed figures about what constitutes "fair market value." The PL and Nielsen took weeks and sometimes months to reply to reasonable requests from City. The PL treated City with contempt. The Judges said the way they treated City was "unreasonable" and "unfair." The Judges are using diplomatic language.
Any reasonable lay person reading those sections of the ATP report can see what happened. The PL and its agencies acted disgracefully. Remember that while this targeted process was happening behind the scenes the PL (and certain Club Directors) were continuing to provide negative briefings to their pals in the media designed to damage City's reputation. This obstruction of our commercial activity didn't happen in isolation. It is part of an ongoing dirty tricks campaign by elements of the PL leadership, certain Club Directors, and some people in the media. As Khaldoon said it is "organisedand clear." The ATP report also shows clearly that Newcastle are now also being targeted in the same way by the PL leadership and certain Club Directors. City's lawyers say there has been discrimination against clubs with owners from the Middle East. I agree with them.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Why all the bullshit aimed at Sbln. He didn't try to fuck us over. He is only giving his opinion. Ffs calm down you fannies

They're probably the matchday wankers too.

 

[johnny crossan]

I agree with much of what you’ve posted here, and certainly (and I’ve previously posted in these terms) it’s difficult to know how successful City have been in terms of this action per se, without knowing what the objectives were.

However, from a strategic point of view I disagree about the implications of this, at least as things presently appear. If our long term strategic aim is to (further) discredit the regulatory body that oversee the club, because they have been acting against it in bad faith, then I would say there are many reasons to believe this has succeeded. Following from the Leicester debacle, it underlines the fact that this is an organisation that isn’t fit for purpose because it is grossly incompetent and/or acting in ways that are improper.

I disagree with the analysis of others because in my view (fwiw) you cannot dress up a finding of unlawfulness in relation to an organisation’s own rules in any way other than hugely significant. They have, once again, wholly misconceived rules which they have constructed and have custody of, which they impose upon other organisations; rules that have been found to be unlawful in ways that are significant. These rules are not some abstract small print, they are front and centre to the way the league is governed. I’m struggling to see how anyone can not see the significance of this, especially placed alongside the misinterpretation of Leicester’s status with those same rules.

I take on board what you say about counselling against a scorched earth policy (in the club’s best interests) but that has to be weighed against the many inferences of the conduct of the PL towards the club. I feel the club is well placed to evaluate this and act accordingly. The unusual existence and robust tone of Cliff’s letter suggests they have done this. They may have done so reluctantly, but out of a sense of necessity.

I have always been confident throughout the last eighteen months that the club’s judgement (correct spelling in this instance!) should be trusted. Moreover, the club wouldn’t have embarked in this course of action, nor sent the letter out, if it felt the associated gains would be nugatory, or even marginal. As that time has passed, it has become increasingly clear (to me at least) that the PL’s judgement, and the advice it has been receiving, has been severely lacking. That is also a material factor when evaluating what the judgment means.

Against all that, I feel that the club wouldn’t have responded in the way it did if it wasn’t supremely confident of the ground it was standing on, or the wider aims of the action, and if I was going to back any particular horse in this race it wouldn’t be the PL.

I therefore feel that the outcome of this action is far more positive than others have posited.

Whether I’m right or not, only time will tell.

And I agree with you that virtually all sports journalists are know nowt cunts :-)

In short all City fans can back our owners and their chosen legal representatives to win this fight!