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

gordondaviesmoustache said:
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 :-)
Click to expand...

I was of a similar mindset yesterday, and wasn't convinced by Stefan's conclusions.

But having looked at the judgment again, I'm less certain it's as big a win as City are suggesting. Firstly, Stefan is taking the judgment at face value because the reasoning for City's court action is unknown. We can speculate and I think the timing gives a clear indication of what we were trying to achieve, but ultimately his position is to look at what we challenged and what we were successful on and I think in doing so a score draw is a fair assessment.

I'm still willing to make the assumption that it was the change in drafting following Newcastle's takeover and the impact that had on our potential sponsorships that City took issue with. I don't think it's a wild jump to make that connection, considering the timings.

So we've successfully argued that the PL's decision on our sponsorships was unlawful. A big win on the face of it. But there's no certainty those sponsorships are re-instated. It ultimately comes down to the PL providing us with comparable transaction data and their databook to justify why those sponsorships were not deemed to meet FMV and for us to have the ability to challenge their benchmarking. But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be successful in securing those sponsorships and then pursuing damages.

As for the APT rules themselves, they have to now cover shareholder loans and they also need to re-draft the rules around FMV to ensure that clubs can comment on the PL's comparable transaction data before a decision on FMV is made.

The PL might have an issue with securing a majority vote on amended rules, particularly around shareholder loans, but I'm not sure it's a significant loss for them on the amendments needed around assessing FMV. There's no doubt in my mind the PL has a cartel of clubs controlling it, but when it comes to assessing FMV the board (cross-examined in this case) were largely found to have a robust approach to making that assessment. The critical part to any success City have on this is whether the comparable transactions a) are comparable and; b) do justify rejecting our proposed sponsorships. Clearly the club do not believe that evidence will justify the decision. But we'll have to wait and see. Any "win" on this really comes down to whether or not those sponsorships are allowed in light of the evidence, and with our ability to make comment on the database.

Again it's clear the club feel that the failure to share critical evidence or allow City to comment or challenge it is more evidence of a conspiracy within the PL.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Even if apt vanished tomorrow, would ffp not still prevent the limitless cash injections that the PL seem to be worried about?
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, the three reasons put forward by the PL for the need for APT monitoring were:

i) The evidence of a right Herbert that: the PL had been considering APT rules for a number of years before 2021 (although this was challenged and later amended to no formal discussions before the Autumn of 2021); the PL had been investigating breaches of FFP since 2018 (presumably City but afaik not fmv related); and UEFA had performed similar investigations (again presumably City) which had shown the potential for RPT rules to be abused (potential, mind you, and again not fmv related)

ii) The fact that the PL had started proceedings against City going back over many years (again afaik nothing to do with fmv)

iii) Statements from the cartel clubs that PSR had not been successful because it relied on self-declaration of RPs in the accounts (without reference to a single RP that wasn't disclosed in the accounts).

Basically, all bullshit.

And then there was this:

1000000841.png

Talk about a weak witness statement leading to a conclusion they wanted. But I suppose what it shows is that witness statements carry more weight than circumstantial evidence, and that should be good for the club in the other case.
 
slbsn said:
Well it’s that or call me a liar. Your call
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call you a liar, however that was never a 1-1 draw.
I don't think talkshite is the place to be to put a balanced argument across, especially when the majority of it's listeners hate City.
 
I also can't keep up with the pace of postings (I log back in and there's another 100 pages of them!!) - so my apologies if this article has already been posted - but it's another cracking article from Martin Samuel - hes not letting this one go any time soon :-)
www.thetimes.com

’Tis but a scratch – Premier League are like Python’s Black Knight

Need help understanding the claims and counter-claims over the Manchester City verdict? Then look no further than ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ …
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
 
I might be living in fantasy land, but with PSR basically in the bin and the chance for clubs to create much higher sponsorship deals, couldnt ticket prices be cheaper? Knowing that revenue wont be relied on as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.