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

[bluenova]

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.

You see a lot of products these days, which highlight the Qualcomm/Snapdragon chips.

It's probably similar to Intel - most of us would have bought things with Intel chips inside, rather than buying the chip direct, but it still became a brand that "sold" PCs and laptops to consumers. Laptop and mobile manufacturers will highlight that they're using the latest or next gen Qualcomm chips as one of the main features.

 

[Tevez City]

I am now only a 100 pages behind - more seem to get added faster than I can read.

I have spotted a trend emerging though - that more and more people are getting on @slbsn case.

Fucking hell there is no winning for the fella;-)

By time I get up to 1300 I am fully expecting discussions about Stefan as if it was a matchday thread - perhaps a few - FFS Stefan posts thrown in

Who is Stefan ?

 

[woody1968]

If Masters had any self respect he would resign. I understand the issue is complex but in a nutshell the whole thing is a shit show and Masters must carry the can. His oxymoronic name says it all, Dick correct, Masters obviously not.

 

[JASR]

Who is Stefan ?

Rosemary the telephone operator or Sarge.


Slbsn = Stefan

 

[Cobwebcat]

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.

This is my whole point and I agree with you. People don’t address the bit in bold below though there maybe more to it than I understand.

that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;

 

[SWP's back]

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.

That’s some top digging.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Same on here when you can amend the spelling of amendment. :-)

Or not ? !

 

[ayrshire_blue]

That’s some top digging.

Labor durus, in GDM speak.

 

[mcfcphil]

If Masters had any self respect he would resign. I understand the issue is complex but in a nutshell the whole thing is a shit show and Masters must carry the can. His oxymoronic name says it all, Dick correct, Masters obviously not.

He can’t resign until after the 115 case. To do so would completely undermine the PL’s position midway through the hearing.

But my strong suspicion is an exit plan will already be in place.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

That’s some top digging.

Wonder if the PL perform as detailed an investigation into the clubs regarding PSR ?