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

[SilverFox2]

Objectively and empirically speaking, yes, but plenty of thick cunts don’t see it that way.

Myself included G.

 

[sir baconface]

All Etihad had to do is point to their exponential growth since 2009, which they credit mostly to their association with Manchester City.

This alone is game, set & match to MCFC. You can't argue with facts & figures... Unless you're the Premier League!

Similarly, look at MCFC’s own exponential growth in value whilst allegedly breaking the laughingly named “profit and sustainability” regs.

 

[CC1]

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!

Gets more complicated every time I look at this thread

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Puts Neilsen right in firing line. All fingers pointing at them I think.

 

[cheekybids]

They're still bitter about Barry, Delph and Milner too. Can't really blame them though as we do seem to have a habit of signing their best players.

I think it’s worse when you factor in how the players they’ve signed from us have turned to shit, Lescott, Richards & Ireland for example.

Well that one is from Dave, LFC.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This bit sounds odd.
"... 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."

If that's the test, the balance of probabilities doesn't come into it.

But is it a fair test? The PL is not a public authority so does Wednesbury apply?

You are mixing up the test required that the decision could be overturned with the evidential basis for arriving at that decision. If it was an educational examination then the balance of probabilities would be the form that the exam took (e.g.multiple choice) the test would be the required pass mark (expressed as a percentage). The two matters are both necessary and discrete. The question the panel must ask is, based on the evidence before us, is it more likely than not that the PL acted in a way that no reasonable board acting reasonably would have made?

I did not say the test was Wesnesbury unreasonable, I clearly said it was analogous.

That test is (correctly) crafted to avoid endless challenges to most decisions made by public authorities and underlines the very wide discretion they have to make those decisions even when they are wrong. Without it public authorities would be crippled in making decisions.

My point (which you have conspicuously failed to appreciate) is that within the rules the PL have huge powers of discretion when it comes to FMV. We cannot complain about that because it is a core rule. To characterise it as a loophole, as with the limitation periods, is to fail to appreciate how contracts operate. All parties wound have been aware of the operation of this rule at the outset.

 

[KentBlue]

They've been gunning for us since the takeover and that is not going to let up now: quite the reverse. The fact that we have proven Masters and his ilk acted illegally but the media will not accept it, is further proof of that.

I see this all as a war of attrition, but like all wars it is going to prove costly for both sides in the long run.

 

[dronefromsector7G]

Well that one is from Dave, LFC.

Loser Fucking ****?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I feel that went against us because - clearly - the whole intention WAS to stop gulf states & if the tribunal had agreed we’d have won hands down.
However, as, hopefully, the shoe is on the other foot in the 115 case & we might need a witness to explain away a hacked email - maybe it’s a good development??

Just reinforces how much more weight is given to a witness's explanation of circumstantial evidence, than the apparently obvious intent in the circumstantial evidence itself. So yes, good for the club in the 115 case.

Food for thought for Harris Magic Twat and the other believers of "it's obvious what City have done from the emails".

 

[Newman Noggs]

Puts Neilsen right in firing line. All fingers pointing at them I think.

It strikes me that there's an awful lot of "discretion" within the parameters of "reasonableness" for anyone who was minded to to mark down the FMV of one club whilst marking up the FMV of another. The lack of transparency is alarming.