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

BlueAnorak said:
I don't believe it was either.
I do however think we voted for shareholder loans to be excluded to help lure the inept PL legal team into a bear trap that they jumped into with both feet.
Click to expand...
I think you're dead right.

The whole PSR case against City hangs entirely on Allegation 1 - that City inflated sponsorship deals with Associated Parties (ie Etisalat & Etihad) to being above FMV.

If

- excluding Preferential Interest Loans from the new APT transactions is unlawful,

then it stands to reason that

- excluding Preferential Interest Loans from the PSR rules is unlawful too,

However, despite this point being a fait acomplis, it hasn't been proven yet in any legal sense.

The point Simon Cliff was making in his letter to the Premier League and the other 19 clubs is that the judgement means the APT rules themselves are unlawful. End of. Any decisions or actions taken under them are therefore null and void. The Premier League has not realised or accepted this yet.

Again, it stands to reason, but hasn't been confirmed in court, that:

- The PSR rules are therefore unlawful too, and any decisions or actions taken under them are null and void too.

The arbitration panel assessing City's PSR case will have this point put to them by Lord Pannick et al.

So I think it is a hugely significant judgement.

Yet at the same time, it will probably have to be proven separately in court or at a tribunal. Who knows it could go the other way?
 
Mr Fraser said:
Good old Ricky as my old dad said about him. His pace was deceptive. He was slower than he looked
Click to expand...
Ricky Holden was the only thing in the universe that turned slower than lead.

I seen quite a bit of him at Oldham. He had a lovely left foot. He was perfect for Joe Royle and that Latics team.
 
TedofChume said:
I think you're dead right.

The whole PSR case against City hangs entirely on Allegation 1 - that City inflated sponsorship deals with Associated Parties (ie Etisalat & Etihad) to being above FMV.

If

- excluding Preferential Interest Loans from the new APT transactions is unlawful,

then it stands to reason that

- excluding Preferential Interest Loans from the PSR rules is unlawful too,

However, despite this point being a fait acomplis, it hasn't been proven yet in any legal sense.

The point Simon Cliff was making in his letter to the Premier League and the other 19 clubs is that the judgement means the APT rules themselves are unlawful. End of. Any decisions or actions taken under them are therefore null and void. The Premier League has not realised or accepted this yet.

Again, it stands to reason, but hasn't been confirmed in court, that:

- The PSR rules are therefore unlawful too, and any decisions or actions taken under them are null and void too.

The arbitration panel assessing City's PSR case will have this point put to them by Lord Pannick et al.

So I think it is a hugely significant judgement.

Yet at the same time, it will probably have to be proven separately in court or at a tribunal. Who knows it could go the other way?
Click to expand...
The fact that the PL want to take existing Shareholder Loans out of updated APT but still include existing sponsorships from 2021-24 in updated APT tells me they are absolutely fucking clueless and are desperate to add "DISCRIMINATORY" to the existing "ILLEGAL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE" words in the recent judgement.
 
TedofChume said:
I think you're dead right.

The whole PSR case against City hangs entirely on Allegation 1 - that City inflated sponsorship deals with Associated Parties (ie Etisalat & Etihad) to being above FMV.

If

- excluding Preferential Interest Loans from the new APT transactions is unlawful,

then it stands to reason that

- excluding Preferential Interest Loans from the PSR rules is unlawful too,

However, despite this point being a fait acomplis, it hasn't been proven yet in any legal sense.

The point Simon Cliff was making in his letter to the Premier League and the other 19 clubs is that the judgement means the APT rules themselves are unlawful. End of. Any decisions or actions taken under them are therefore null and void. The Premier League has not realised or accepted this yet.

Again, it stands to reason, but hasn't been confirmed in court, that:

- The PSR rules are therefore unlawful too, and any decisions or actions taken under them are null and void too.

The arbitration panel assessing City's PSR case will have this point put to them by Lord Pannick et al.

So I think it is a hugely significant judgement.

Yet at the same time, it will probably have to be proven separately in court or at a tribunal. Who knows it could go the other way?
Click to expand...

That would only account for the charges related to PSR in that case though, which is only four of them and not the main ones.
 
Maly said:
I may be incorrect here, but didn’t Platini suggest clubs in debt were cheating, so FFP was initially about reducing debt & nothing at all to do with owner investment as you suggest?
Click to expand...
Yup! And then Sheikh Mansour bought Manchester City Football Club, & UEFA's long drawn out proposals for reducing debt in football, were suddenly ditched & the focus switched to stifling owner investment, & then renamed Financial FAIR PLAY.

Fair to whom?

The fact David Gill was the man behind FFP is even more galling & incredulous. I asked a couple of Tarquins & a Rag to name me another industry where a business owner can't invest his/her/their legally acquired wealth into their business to grow it & compete?

Fucking crickets.... \0/
 
Last edited:
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.