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

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

The Game podcast with Martin Samuel was very interesting but I took issue with some of the comments made, not by the presenter, but by his Samuel's colleague. We did have a very clever legal team but we did not win because they launched their attack on the APT regulations in a way no-one saw coming. I certainly thought the point of attack would be on the discriminatory aspects of the rules, but interest free loans have been a recurring grievance for City and our fans. And I remember clearly that we were incensed when FFP was introduced to find that annual subscriptions for the renewal of membership at clubs such as Bayern, Real and Barcelona were not to be considered owner investment - however much these clubs claimed to be owned by their members ....

Apart from that Martin was in fine form and he stressed again that in his opinion "there was no reset button." I notice, however, that it is claimed that the upcoming meeting of chairman is not even going to discuss changing the rules! I am reminded that the FA maintained the retain and transfer regulations years after the opinion of their lawyers was that it was unsustainable, and even after George Eastham's successful legal challenge. The tactic was timely retreat against really hard cases while using the regs to deter the less determined. I doubt they'll get away with waving through City's deals, blocking others and keeping quiet about interest free loans...

 

[Stoned Rose]

I hate that look of suit jacket but with no tie and top buttons not done up.
So scruffy.

Scruffy?

Piccadilly Gardens enjoys you.

 

[slbsn]

So you did not have to backtrack on your quotes about United's £75 million PSR fudge with Covid-19 and Jim's shares fees, Funny I thought you said on the show a couple of days later United had complained to the show about how I was putting it across that they cheated PSR,

Again I quote.

Then you said that United did not break any rules in doing this, but other clubs also did the same but were not allowed to add so many COVID-19 allowances because of lost match-day revenue. You then added that Arsenal has around 60,000 at the Emirates, and they could only add around a couple of million in allowances.

Cheating is cheating in any book and when you control others' spending allowances you can declare and then allow United to Fudge or Cheat PSR is OK

None of that is true. Never ever been told what to say by TS, any producer, Jim White, Simon Jordan or anyone else. I dont even get their show notes.

Oh and don’t say “quote” and then not quote at all or accurately.

I stand by everything I have said on TalkSport. I’m careful what I say for exactly that reason. And it is all my objective view.

The fact you take time to write this crap is pathetic.

 

[sir baconface]

That it was found that any part of the APT rules or practices were unlawful is all that matters.

That it was found that interest free shareholders loans are unlawful could end up being huge for the league and very impactful for a few clubs.

Whether we lost many of the other things we took them to court on is neither here nor there really. The main thing is that we’ve made the PL look like a dodgy, secretive, underhand and untrustworthy organisation of shysters who have brought in unlawful rules and allowed unlawful practices to go on that benefits or lets off some clubs and not others.

It’s not about a 11:9 win either way, or even 17:3 against.

People are slowly but surely discovering that the PL are not fit to run the top league in this country. That’s where we’ve won.

Yup. And whilst the two aren’t directly linked, this can only strengthen our confidence re the 115.

First, at the reputational level, the PL are now on the back foot. And second, because we can be confident of further irregularities (if not cock-ups) emerging on their part.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

It had calmed down until you posted that :)

 

[Damocles]

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 :-)

It seems to problem here is that we're arguing different definitions of what constitutes a win.

When I talk about how I do not see this as a huge victory for City, I am saying that I don't see how this fundamentally changes the rules around APT and that while some parts were judged unlawful and some procedural changes need to happen, in the grand scheme of things then these can be implemented and the rules stay around where they are.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're not talking about a win in context of what words are changed in the APT but instead are looking at the much larger picture in context of City vs the PL and the PL as a competent regulatory body?

It would be extremely hard for anyone to argue against the idea that, in those terms, we've landed another blow against the PL. We've yet again shown that they are unable to draft their own rules in accordance with the law. We've shown that in several cases they have been procedurally incompetent and unfair in applying those rules to clubs. If the fight is to show that the PL cannot regulate itself then we are the clear victors and there's very few other ways to interpret it imo. The judgment was damning in that part.

Maybe that has been the fight all along really? It was suggested that City are one of the very few clubs to want a football regulator over the PL. The PL 115 decision was released the day before the vote on a football regulator which I'm not entirely certain was a coincidence. The PL go after City to show that they can regulate and in turn we've gone after them to show that their bluster around 115 was political and they are not able to regulate? Maybe that's part of the strategy?

You're right in saying that Cliff's leaked letter can be interpreted as a team who are confident of their assertions. But it can also be viewed as a team who has one eye on the 115 case and is attempting to play their hand.

Ultimately it depends on what the aims of City really are and unfortunately we don't understand them. I would have thought that their goals align with their goals against UEFA - that is to win their arguments and continue working with them as a commercial and business partner in the future and rebuild that relationship. If along the way, we can paint a picture of the PL as a currently incompetent and possibly compromised body who are politically motivated in their decisions to try and desperately hoodwink the Government about their ability to regulate in order to continue their machinations then that certainly can't hurt the 115 case.

Either way I'm not getting carried away with this sort of stuff because I'm not sure how useful it is currently to do that. I'd prefer the PL to be under different regulation but the merits of the 115 case will not be primarily judged on whether the PL can be trusted to regulate but whether the evidence against us is substantial enough.

 

[Stoned Rose]

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.

BOQ on fire.

 

[dickie davies]

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.

I wondering City can use their non cooperation as a defence against its own charge

 

[slbsn]

I'll take your word for that.

Well it’s that or call me a liar. Your call

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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?

I think your second par is spot-on. I don't think City expect to remove APTS and FMV. After all we have agreed to these sort of broad policies (or something similar) for years. But reading the APT judgement document in full what really struck me was the sheer level of malice shown by the PL at every step of the way. They have tried to destroy our business model by obstructing our commercial activity and attacked our reputation relentlessly via their pals in the media. The whole tone of that APT document suggests that the bad blood between both sides is off the scale. I think City have just reached the end of their tether and taken the gloves off. Let's face it being reasonable has got us nowhere. I realise it was a much more serious issue but the behaviour of senior people at the PL and some malicious Club Directors reminds me of corruption during the Post Office scandal. I believe the culture at the top of the PL organisation is corrupt. That leaked Newcastle email proves it.