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

[meltonblue]

Why not ?

Because they’re clearly state owned.

 

[halfcenturyup]

mine are 55 + 57 ...... you can't ever stop worrying !!

You win :)

 

[TheGhost]

Presumably @M23 Citizen approves of Martin's non 'scruffy" shirt and tie combo?

He definitely had Greggs Dandruff down that suit within an hour of that photo

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Even if that were so, the PL has to get a majority vote for new Rules. (Do they need 14 votes?)

I imagine a backroom conversation, whereby City say they will support new rules that suit them - in exchange for not seeking compensation for the damage caused to City by the PL's application of unlawful rules.

You would expect some sort of horse trading to be going on. The PL now need to somehow keep City onside to prevent further costs and claims as you state. That said I can't see how this will be at all easy with several parties with different vested interests round the table. How Masters and Co think this will be sorted in under 10 days is bizarre.

 

[mcfcphil]

If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the claim would consider the reasons for the loss (was it purely the unlawful rules causing the rejection for example) and, if causation was proved, then there would be an assessment of loss .

So, guessing, lets say the deal was £90m for 24/25 rising 8% pa for 10 years. And lets say, the PL said no, the FMV is £80m rising 5% for 10 years. City maybe decided that in 24/25 they would take the £80m and argue about the rest. This means if approved for the next 9 years during 24/25 on the original basis, City's maximum loss is £10m plus interest.

Ultimately, EAG are hardly likely to reject the possibility of a lower priced commercial deal because City have been capped out by the PL FMV calc.

Cheers, thanks for taking the time, makes sense.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

As it is clear that the PL brought in unlawful rules deliberately to stop Newcastle progressing, why are NUFC not putting in a claim for compensation?

Maybe in the throes of as we speak.

Pretty sure their legals will be watching ...........

 

[Vic]

There are also two other clauses that say they are unlawful:

“(i) 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;
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason;
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;”

The “and for no other reason” statement must be legalese because it gives two other reasons.

I think it makes sense if you understand it as:

“(i) 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 (the only reason they are in breach of the Act);
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules (the only reason they are in breach of the Act);
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV (the only reason they are procedurally unfair);”

 

[nijinsky69]

Void in English law means never existed. https://www.vocabulaw.co.uk/terms/void/

Yes, probably legal semantics but the tribunal’s view on the status of the rules will be very interesting.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the claim would consider the reasons for the loss (was it purely the unlawful rules causing the rejection for example) and, if causation was proved, then there would be an assessment of loss .

So, guessing, lets say the deal was £90m for 24/25 rising 8% pa for 10 years. And lets say, the PL said no, the FMV is £80m rising 5% for 10 years. City maybe decided that in 24/25 they would take the £80m and argue about the rest. This means if approved for the next 9 years during 24/25 on the original basis, City's maximum loss is £10m plus interest.

Ultimately, EAG are hardly likely to reject the possibility of a lower priced commercial deal because City have been capped out by the PL FMV calc.

While you are here, can I ask you this? What legal status does the PL have to require a third party sponsor to change a valid contract with a PL club? Especially one overseas? I never understood that.

And what happens if Etihad signed at a lower amount as required by the PL, and the higher amount is later approved but Etihad refuse to increase again?

Sorry. Lots of questions, as always.

 

[Vic]

mine are 55 + 57 ...... you can't ever stop worrying !!

Just for "light" relief, I remember an old cartoon with a very old couple at the grave of their son who died aged 70, with the father saying "I tellt tha we'd nivver rear the lad".