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

city2 said:
The cartel must be so pissed off and have told Webb that City’s next game at Wolves they want to see 3 straight red cards , 2 penalties, 6 yellow cards 2 disallowed goals all in favour for Wolves.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Jon Moss or Mike Dean will be reactivated...
 
TedofChume said:
To be honest whilst it's nice that Stefan Borson provides some kick back, he really does waffle and come out with some mealy mouthed drivel at times.

At the end of the day, we were told by Platini that the whole purpose of FFP was to stop owners pumping too much money into their clubs, to try to make the game more sustainable. The PSR rules are supposed to be a more lenient/watered down version of the same, as the allowable losses are higher.

However FFP insists owner loans have interest allocated at a FMV rate and PSR doesn't (or didn't).

Judging by the Premier League's stance on this point and losing in court on it, if Mansour had simply leant City £1.5Billion at 0% then they wouldn't be pursuing City for breaching PSR... dream on.....

The Premier League have been proven by this judgement and their immediate response to be completely corrupt and disingenuous.

These hefty preferential loans at clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool have been around for over 15 years, deliberately circumventing PSR. How can they write off historical issues of interest free orclow interest loans?

I've actually calculated Liverpool's 2010 0.5% £240m loan would now stand at £735m if an FMV interest rate of 8% had been applied. They would never have had the money to buy Mo Salah, let alone Van Dijk. Alisson, Fabhino and Keita. They wouldn't have won anything at all under Klopp.

Arsenal have spent way above their means over the last 8 years using this same mechanism, to build the side they have today.

When the PSR rules were written, I find it hard to believe high quality law firms were not involved because of the sums of money at stake. These firms will have provided sound legal advice as to the legality of this issue, and almost certainly advised against it. You'd have to assume they deliberately ignored it at the behest of Arsenal, Liverpool and United to give them a loophole whilst they try to "get City"

City have had two sponsorship deals stopped this year under the APT rules that have just been found unlawful and can claim compensation. I have no idea how much they're for, but axtypical deal of £20m over 5 years is £100m. So this alone could be considerable.

Yesterday the Daily Mail, when covering this story, suggested many smaller Premier League clubs had been trying to get the Premier League to drop the PSR case against City, and settle for damages out of court.

It is now very clear to me, City are going to win their PSR case either at arbitration or on appeal in a court of law. The legal costs and compensation are going to hit £1Billion or thereabouts for this whole affair.

On the one hand, we want our club vindicated and cleared, but we don't want to destroy competitive football and the Premier League.

This is why our owners are pushing for a football regulator.

I'd love to see the Glazers. Kroenke, FSG, Joe Lewis and Boehly booted out of football for good.

I wish Stefan Borson would show more balls.
Click to expand...

Really_here said:
100% this. Who can say? You might think a deal was over-inflated and someone else might think it wasn't. There isn't a right or a wrong answer is there?
Click to expand...
Both excellent posts. I am struggling to understand how anyone can think that City didn't win the case. Read the judgement FFS!

The Premier league I presume wanted to defend the existing APT rules and keep them in place. City on the other hand wanted to prove that the APT rules were anti competitive and get their sponsorship deals ultimately reinstated - they manifestly succeeded.

How anyone can think or characterise that as a success for the PL is beyond comprehension.

They had a small victory in proving that the premise of APT and FMV was legal but they are going to have to re-wrote those rules to ensure they are now legal

I'm not sure, but I suspect total victory would have been the complete abolition of APT rules and FMV That might have been the optimal result but given City didn't challenge the rules in 2021 I struggle to believe that was the objective.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m sure Stefan doesn’t need anyone to defend him but people also need to appreciate that he’s plainly a cautious individual, which I expect is a characteristic that has served him well professionally over the yearsI think some people are expecting him to be something he’s not, which is a ridiculous expectation quite frankly.

He’s simply playing his natural game and shouldn’t be criticised for it.
Click to expand...
Rick Holden played his natural game. I bet you criticised him for it.
 
Blue Mooner said:
Both excellent posts. I am struggling to understand how anyone can think that City didn't win the case. Read the judgement FFS!

The Premier league I presume wanted to defend the existing APT rules and keep them in place. City on the other hand wanted to prove that the APT rules were anti competitive and get their sponsorship deals ultimately reinstated - they manifestly succeeded.

How anyone can think or characterise that as a success for the PL is beyond comprehension.

They had a small victory in proving that the premise of APT and FMV was legal but they are going to have to re-wrote those rules to ensure they are now legal

I'm not sure, but I suspect total victory would have been the complete abolition of APT rules and FMV That might have been the optimal result but given City didn't challenge the rules in 2021 I struggle to believe that was the objective.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, this is Dan Roan's article on the letter City's Simon Cliff has sent out to the a Premier League and other clubs. It's nice to know confidentiality isn't important to Roan.

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.
www.bbc.co.uk

As usual Roan tries to hide the truth, but Cliff is spot on:

" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.

"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies,

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void,

"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls.

I'm inclined to agree with Cliff, and I'm baffled that the Premier League appear to be in denial of what has actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.