The rationale behind that being, I think, that during the time the shareholders loans were excluded from APT it placed all other clubs who did not have them at a disadvantage which cannot be remedied.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.
says that at the end of each of the 4 unlawful judgments - just a conventional identifier, doesn't preclude further instancesThanks 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?
No. The bean counters at City will want the best of both worlds!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.
If it was the case that City's sponsors could pay City massive amounts of money if the APT rules was abolished, why then didn't they do that before the APT rules existed.That's what they want you to believe. They can get you under the acting in good faith rule even if they remove the threshold transactions and arm's length determination along with the APT rules.
That is what they were threatening those end of season weird swap deals with, and what they may still use if they feel strong enough after all this :P
Sam Matterface was a 'journalist'? That's not a description I have heard before. I quite like it.
Not a chance massive legal fees need paying nowI 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.
If that's the case, wouldn't it be quite smart to have someone on there who currently doesn't represent City and takes a factual and unbiased stance with a remarkable expertise? Maybe understatement and calmness is the way that serves us well trying to convince people that maybe the picture painted by media is not quite as perfect as many have hoped to be...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.
UEFA rules, same ones still in place.If it was the case that City's sponsors could pay City massive amounts of money if the APT rules was abolished, why then didn't they do that before the APT rules existed.
Self serving cunts...Because they are both cunts.
Really? That I did not realise.says that at the end of each of the 4 unlawful judgments - just a conventional identifier, doesn't preclude further instances