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

[Ste68]

Do they have a choice, by law they now have to be included going forward surely?

They would have to be included as they are by very definition and unquestionably an APT.

I would think the bigger obstacle to a rushed set of rules would be convincing 14 clubs to vote in favour of a newly drafted set.

In effect the current rules cannot continue to be used but how does the PL persuade enough clubs it can get this right giving the total abject failure to do so in the past.

Assuming they do go to bat with a redraft (and it looks like they intend to do that) then they will have to accept the burden of proof that a deal is above FMV lies squarely with the PL , they will have to share the rationale , they will have to turn a decision round quickly and with the evidence to back it up but doubt how robust a set of rules can be that objectively decide a commercial deal is an APT if its not legally controlled by the owner or senior member of staff of the club doing the deal and once you decide it is how do you as the PL now prove its above FMV whilst avoiding legal challenge.

Would expect it would take some time for the PL to assure enough clubs the rules were watertight and capable of avoiding legal challenges for being unlawful and discriminatory and will not come back around to bite them on the backside. Might mean the clubs who got this through by sitting on the fence will now vote against it. Expect there are lots of back route conversations going on between clubs themselves and the PL no doubt doing the rounds and more clarification to come from the Tribunal.

Tebas meanwhile laughing his nuts off.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

They need to recognise it's just business. When United were top dogs every sponsor was falling over themselves to get a bit of the action. Business changes, adapts, develops. Now it's our turn.

They don't want to discriminate (apparently), so make sure all sponsorships are around fair value, related, associated or third party. Do it properly. No need for APTs at all.

No need for any financial rules only whatever a club loses over a year has to be paid by the owner/owners. Yes this may give a few clubs a certain advantage for a time but let's get it right have ADG and the Saudi investment group invested in City and Newcastle to lose 100s of millions every season?? Its a long term investment same as the dodgy meat seller at United made and littlewoods with the dippers.

 

[KS55]

Then APT cannot be fair or administered without bias as it doesn't treat all clubs transactions the same

That’s my view too, but not the tribunal’s unfortunately.

 

[Gordyola]

Alistair McIntosh probably still mad he didn't get to ride the gravy train at City when Abu Dhabi took over...

He left long before, replaced by Garry Cooke

 

[KS55]

If I were the PL, I would:
1. Scrap APTs completely and rely on IAS 24 related definition.
2. Introduce a cap for team spending that is absolute, ie not related to a club’s income. Make it big enough for the big boys. (Then the rags could stop outspending us!)

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

He left long before, replaced by Garry Cooke

Long before? He left in mid June 2018 , takeover was September 1 - Google says 81 days.

 

[Gremlin]

Meanwhile, any football going on?

International break - probably why this is getting so much airtime on here

 

[Ste68]

Stefan and Damocles are wrong.

We proved their rules are unlawful. Which is what we set out to do.

I think the outcome from the Tribunal was much better than I expected due largely to not knowing the PL had not been as careful in its drafting , implementation and following of the rules. In effect the tribunal has now made them unusable and so has forced a rethink. Makes the PL look grossly incompetent at best. That is a win.

The next test is the consequences of that decision and the proposed rules which will emerge and I guess that's the next battle to be had and based on the letters flying round the war is far from over.

 

[Vic]

Read that yesterday. Was there ever a response?

No-one has said it's wrong!

 

[hello]

You can as long as it passes the fair market value test.

If FMV is a subsection of APT that's in turn a subsection of PSR in general and the supposed objective of PSR is sustainability then why the fuck isn't an FMV assessment conducted for under market value abuse by APT's which actually jeopardises sustainability such as Newcastle's association with Sports direct? Is it that the long term sustainability of Newcastle under fat mike was never a concern for the premier league as they posed zero threat to the red shite, but within 5 days of a takeover the rule(s)need changing pronto.