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

[halfcenturyup]

Here is a thing I was thinking while you lazy cunts were asleep.

If the new Etihad deal has to be re-assessed, how can the PL claim that that has happened fairly when they will have a bit of a problem if they change their assessment? Another case incoming?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Need more info here. Didn't one of the comments suggest that it's not unreasonable to identify this as outside FMV?

Not being a **** mate, genuine ask

I’m struggling to find anything online relating to Rule X and I’m slightly confused by the presence of references to Rule X.3.2 and Rule X.5.2 in the tweet, but the way I read parts 3, 4 and 5 of that tweet is that within the PL rules the only way City could successfully challenge the PL’s assessment that the Etihad deal was outside FMV via the arbitration process, was to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that particular decision by the PL was so unreasonable, that no properly minded [PL] board would have arrived at the same conclusion.

This is an extremely challenging burden to discharge. If the arbitration panel felt the decision was harsh, wrong, or even unreasonable then this alone would not be enough, and that part of City’s claim would fail.

And because the PL’s key live witness in respect of that aspect of the case, Mai Fyfield, gave credible evidence (and presumably came across as reasonable) this became an impossible burden for City to discharge.

The test referred to is essentially the same as the public law cause of action where (in very broad terms) to successfully challenge the decision of a public authority per se (where it has been made within that authority’s lawful powers) that decision has to be held by the High Court to be ‘Wednesbury Unreasonable’ following a case about a cinema in that Black Country town from the 1940s, (which I have actually stood outside when I’ve been in the town as it’s still standing, and is now a disused bingo hall!)

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are three broad gateways to a decision by a public authority being Wednesbury Unreasonable, one being the following: a decision that was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have possibly made it.

It’s a notoriously difficult burden to discharge and essentially requires the claimant to demonstrate irrationality in making the decision on behalf of the defendant public authority.

This test is very similar, if not practically identical, to Rule X.3.2/Rule X.5.2.

That’s how I read it anyway!

 

[cheekybids]

As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?

Surely the formula will be in the discovery of emails that City requested.

 

[oldius]

Speaking of lawyers, Anfield Watch accuses City of trying to run the league. I love an objective analysis, and I know that I can rely on Arsenal and Liverpool based sources to be impartial and reflective.

 

[jrb]

They tide has turned amongst PL fans and football fans.

Comment after comment about Masters and the corrupt red cartel destroying the PL.

Apart from the 3 red shirt fans, all other PL fans now know who the real corrupt, cheats are.

 

[oldius]

There's always a point at which I back out of paying attention to the minutiae. I think I am right in saying that the PL rules were declared unlawful and procedurally unfair. Do I really need to know more than that? I don't think so. I debated this with Miguel Delaney, who, as is his want, chooses to fog the issue with immense detail to, IMO, appease those rival fans seeking crumbs of comfort. They NEED to hear that the PL won 25 elements of the case to our 3. They NEED to know that APT rules are not, in principle, out of bounds. I do not.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

Don't fuck with sharks.

Some moron got bit the other day by a shark by pulling its tail, seems like quite an apt metaphor.

 

[the talisman]

They also worked for City.

Did I read that stuff correctly?
Nielsen were hired by City and said the Etihad deal was fine, then they were hired by the premier league and said it was over FMV?

 

[RobinHood]

So this particular tweet (from Stefan) relates to City's Etihad sponsorship deal which was a key part of the APT case. The crux of this issue is the PL's reliance on a Fair Market Value (FMV) assessment of City's Etihad deal produced by Nielsen which was significantly below where City has valued it. But City also relied on a Nielsen assessment (in 2021) which used substantially the same method. The PL's key decison-maker (Mai Fyfield, non-Exec Director) was aware of City's valuation from Nielsen and obtained an explanation of the differences from Nielsen.

As I understand, the Tribunal judgment covered the following:
1. They did not assess whether City's or the PL's valuation was correct. Instead they concluded that it was not unreasonable for Fyfield to rely on Nielsen's explanation of differences and arrive at her FMV decision. So this aspect of City's complaint was not upheld.

2. PL in its FMV assessment relied on a benchmarking analysis prepared by Nielsen. The Tribunal upheld City's complaint that they should have been shown this analysis and allowed to counter it and deemed this to be procedurally unfair.

3. More generally, the Tribunal opined that the concept of APT rules is not illegal but the rules as currently drafted are unlawful. In particular, they upheld City's assertion that loans from company shareholders should be included in APT assessments - in other words, Shareholders (owners, non-executive directors) are Associated Parties. This matters because at least 9 clubs receive such Shareholder loans that are at zero/low interest rates - in other words off-market rates. If you re-assessed those Shareholder loans at FMV, many of these clubs could fail PSR - which is the point Martin Samuel eloquently makes.

4,. This has given rise to a new food fight where the PL claims they can just tweak the current rules (e.g. add in Shareholder loans) whereas City state that the rules are unlawful so have to be discarded and re-done from scratch (and are threatening legal action if PL attempts to short cut things). Additionally, any changes to APT rules would need to be affirmed by at least 14 clubs. If 9 are depending on Shareholder Loans, they may well not agree.

5. On Shareholder loans, there is a separate fight over whether they are added in for future assessments (PL's stance) or whether all old deals need to be re-valued (City's stance). The latter would be especially problematic for clubs who might then retroactively fail PSR for prior years. Opening a major can of worms.

6. Tribunal also rejected City's claim that the APT rules were brought into disadvantage Gulf-owned clubs.

Anyway, that's my reading of things. Great minds of Bluemoon, please correct if I got anything wrong!

Worthy of a 'thank you'. Understood.

 

[spacecadet]

Just read this in the Times re: Dick Masterbates. On Wednesday Masters was forced to pull out of a golf day with television executives from Sky and NBC at the exclusive Loch Lomond Golf Club, which charges in the region of £600 to visitors for a round and new members somewhere approaching £100,000 as a joining fee. The NBC executives, who pay about £350million a season in TV rights to the Premier League as the biggest overseas broadcast partner, flew in from the US for the event but Masters has had to prioritise a matter that has caused huge divisions in English football’s top flight.