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.
