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

[sir baconface]

Thanks Vic but it says….

“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;”

That says to me that if the shareholder loans area is corrected then it becomes lawful as they state that is the only reason?

They also found procedural reasons, which would also need to be corrected. Then surely the whole new, impeccably drafted package would need to be voted in properly rather than anything prior being reinstated?

 

[Cheadle_hulmeBlue]

A bit early in the day to be on the sauce, innit?

It’s never too early. The breakfast club is still a thing in some pubs.

 

[johnny crossan]

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.

I only got the free 15 minutes - seems to me the club is correct that the whole PL APT regime is null and void given the judgment's full exposition. Its core pricing mechanisms as well as owner loans are unlawful so there is no painless fix for the cartel. They can't now discriminate against particular clubs because of the geographic location of their owners so how else do they stop us? We'll be back to the pre 2021 situation where the PL followed UEFA's rules and under those there would be no issue - viz PSG & Qatar.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks Vic but it says….

“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;”

That says to me that if the shareholder loans area is corrected then it becomes lawful as they state that is the only reason?

He is saying that, at the moment the judgment was issued, certain of the rules have been declared unlawful and so the APT rules are immediately, as a whole, null and void. Are they are null and void today, and will be until new lawful rules are put in place.

I suppose a consequence of that would be that they were null and void in the full period 2021 to 2024 as well.

I have no idea if any of that is correct, just no-one has pooh-poohed it yet.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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?

The problem is that quite a lot of the leaks were false information. For example there were leaks about City facing draconian punishments from EUFA in the run up to the CAS decision. This information was false but Panja reported it as fact with no caveats. In fact UEFA had virtually no evidence and Ceferin later tried to cut a deal with Khaldoon. The information coming from Gill and Parry (who was part of the UEFA IC which investigated City) was false. It was used as part of a smear campaign against City. Panja may be close to senior people at MUFC and LFC but it doesn't make him a reliable source. Panja's story last week said City had only won a minor challenge about databases. The Judges' summary shows that is just untrue.

 

[Manc in London]

Yes mate, I highly researched the job history of EVERY SINGLE sports journalist in this country then got my calculator out and did the maths to calculate that it was "one billion percent". I thought for a while that it was only 999,999,986% but there was a rounding error on Sam Matterface.

Sam Matterface was a 'rounding error'? That's not a description I have heard before. I quite like it.

 

[SWP's back]

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?

Not sure if that’s a serious question.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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;

It's the consequence of the unlawfulness we are discussing, not the reason(s) for it.

I think. :)

 

[sir baconface]

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

Once we’ve finished, examining their own bogies will be the only thing they’re capable of.

 

[wolviedinho]

The problem is that quite a lot of the leaks were false information. For example there were leaks about City facing draconian punishments from EUFA in the run up to the CAS decision. This information was false but Panja reported it as fact with no caveats. In fact UEFA had virtually no evidence and Ceferin later tried to cut a deal with Khaldoon. The information coming from Gill and Parry (who was part of the UEFA IC which investigated City) was false. It was used as part of a smear campaign against City. Panja may be close to senior people at MUFC and LFC but it doesn't make him a reliable source. Panja's story last week said City had only won a minor challenge about databases. The Judges' summary shows that is just untrue.

Panja’s motive was to downplay the points city won on. The league is doing the same and so is stefan to a certain extent hence the backlash. We can speculate to motive.

Anyone who promotes a city victory is ostracised. Funny that.