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

malg said:
Thought it was all on here, but probably 200 pages back now. From memory.....(I'm old and could be wrong):

Rags, Dippers, Arse, Wolves, Brentford, Bournemouth, West Ham and Fulham
Click to expand...

You may be right, but as far as I can see, five clubs provided witness statements for the PL and one appeared as a witness, making six: Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Spurs, West Ham and Brighton;

And three appeared as witnesses for City: Newcastle, Chelsea and Everton.

That makes six to four. Just need three of the remaining ten to get a blocking vote. I am guessing Villa, Forest and Leicester would be open. And we can probably get more if Soriano leverages the club's advantages with the "smaller" clubs successfully. He can earn his money on this.
 
Damanino said:
bit worried about the friends we have, 8 clubs worked with PL against us, red cartel the main enemies but the other 5 dont like us either.
then Che, New, Eve supported us, so that leaves 8 teams who might on the fence to decide which way to lean.

Spurs surprise not in the 8 in this APT case trying to throw us under the bus, but you can bet Levy happy with any negative outcome on City so I would say 9 against us, 3 with us and maybe Forest so its 9 vs 5 with 6 clubs still to decide 3 of them promoted ones, and other three some of these 6 might abstain again on any big decision like happened in past. meaning even 11-12 votes could be enough.

we deffo not have numbers to push through some rules we want to happen and its a tight thing to even stop some rules being voted we dont want.

we are really hated and many have been brainwashed about City, Newcastle and Arab owners in general. lot of owners in lesser clubs dont wanna here a promoted team having rich owners ready to invest and stay in PL for 5-10 years rather than be a club that relegates soon after promotion. Newcastle pose danger for both set of teams, they are overtaking teams fighting for 7-8-9-10. with potential to overtake 3-4-5-6th as well instead of the mainly 13-18. places they did in Ashley era.
and they rather stop us then not cement in current status quo, and happy to play second fiddle to red cartel for cosy 7th-15th places year in year out. we re asking team to have dreams and bit of risk when they dont have any ambition, dreams just pure self interest and the safe option currently available.

Newcastle currently great example of the rules in work, they would need further serious investment in the squad to really take on CL teams and continued investment for years to challenge for title every season alongside great decisions made on staff, transfer etc. but they hit a limit, certainly could not properly spent to do this, they may add Guehi which would blow most of their available limit, but in the meantime their rivals can add much more quality money spent. nothing fair about this.
Click to expand...
We won’t be in a position to push through rules of our choosing but we are in an excellent place to ensure that anything passed will be compliant. Every club now knows what has been deemed unlawful and it can’t possibly be in their interest to ram through a new set of unlawful regs. The cartel poodle clubs simply have to put a bit more thought into it this time, whether they like it or not.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Just speculation I suppose, but this from the BBC, for example:

"However, City's lawyers believe that it would be unfair to continue to subject previous sponsorship deals to APT rules that have now been found to be partly unlawful, while choosing not to subject previous shareholder loans to the same regulations. They may even seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from trying to doing so."
Click to expand...
What do the BBC mean by "partly unlawful." Nothing can be "partly unlawful."
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
I thought the 'evidently' came in the valuation ruling on the Ethiad deal not the rule itself.
Click to expand...
The word "evidently" is one of the buffers referred to in 288.
From para. 286:
This point was also recognised in the advice of Helen Davies KC: “The standard of ‘evidently in excess of FMV’ should ensure that it is only obviously abusive transactions that are prevented and thus that there is no unintended collateral adverse effect on competition.”
Then in 288
However, having regard to the evidence of <redacted>
and <redacted>, we consider that the Amended APT Rules remove an important part of the previous buffer which was intended to reduce the risk of false positives.
The removal of this buffer is liable to increase the risk of a distortion of competition and to do so materially. In our view, it is important that the method chosen for
determining the FMV of an APT is sufficiently robust to, if not eliminate, at least reduce the risk of false positives. We are not persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Herbert
that these changes are either necessary or proportionate to the ensuring of the effectiveness of the PSR. His evidence does not grapple with the possible bespoke nature of sponsorship agreements.
289. Accordingly, we conclude that these changes are a restriction of competition by object.
 
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.