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

[the blue panther]

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.

Perfect. I concur.

 

[halfcenturyup]

See my post yesterday

Read that yesterday. Was there ever a response?

 

[lust overlord]

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.

Well put.

I'd hazard that "winning" for lots of us,is that the premier league have been shown to be less than competent in their application of their own rules.Also a confirmation,of sorts,that certain clubs have an unhealthy amount of influence over the premier league compared to the rest.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Well yes, what a mess that was. But I was talking PL. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut out of fear (being kind) or by placing impossible requirements in the way (to be more realistic).

It's all so unnecessary.

Even if apt vanished tomorrow, would ffp not still prevent the limitless cash injections that the PL seem to be worried about?

 

[IcriedwhenTueartleft]

Firstly, my apologies to @slbsn
I listened carefully today and he does defend us in a very professional manner. I think sometimes I wish he was like us all and wanting to tell them all to fuck off however I understand why he doesn't or can't.

Takes a big chap to admit a mistake, good on you. just listened to the 93.20 podcast with him on it discussing the APT case result, his usual measured responses but make no mistake, Stefan is very much a blue like all of us.

 

[wolviedinho]

Dissecting the tribunals outcome is tedious. The lawyers on both sides will manipulate the wording of the the case to suit their own narrative.

The overwhelming feeling is confidence. Confidence in city as a force in football.

The league is now viewed as bias, incompetent and at worst corrupt. That’s a city win. It will help us win points in the 115 and show the “tyranny of the majority”.

Regarding APT, what did city want to achieve? Simply to show the illegality of some of the new amendments brought in and maybe cast aspirations towards the rules in general. I would see that as another city win. The league will try and amend the rules is another win.

The unexpected scrutiny of shareholder loans is another city win.

If city get the sponsorships through that the league blocked and if city get paid compensation then that is a city win.

Let’s see what’s left of the premier leagues rotten carcass after the 115.

Overall the league is bating for the few clubs they deem historically pure at the expense of any other club trying to achieve sporting and commercial success.

The inconvenient truth is that if the old top 3 of united, Liverpool, Arsenal were left unchallenged none of these rules would exist. It’s undeniable, unfair, unreasonable and unlawful.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

So sounds like Alison Brittan would be a seriously welcome upgrade on the current incumbent.

Dianne Abbot would be a serious upgrade on that Melt!

 

[vincent]

Takes a big chap to admit a mistake, good on you. just listened to the 93.20 podcast with him on it discussing the APT case result, his usual measured responses but make no mistake, Stefan is very much a blue like all of us.

It was a good podcast. I also found the comments on 115 and our robust standing on the APT findings may come from a position of strength. Who knows but that is exactly what I thought before listening to the podcast.

 

[WRicko]

My reading is the APT rules are void and will remain so until amended. Doesn’t this therefore present a window of opportunity to complete those deals?

I thought something was set aside could just be the compensation and not the amount the sponsorships can be but even then I think the two would be linked and we have seen City be gracious in victory (UEFA) before but perhaps not now or with the a Premier League. Would city want to risk doing a deal and then arguments at a later date about its value and validity ? I doubt it. Plus the rules will have to change quickly so why not wait ?

 

[meltonblue]

New assessment, new rules. Or, I suppose, no rules :)

Yeah but I’m not expecting a different outcome. Well, unless they don’t agree on new rules so it ends up as you say!