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

[Coatigan]

They're completely different. Our charges go up to 2018 and these rules were introduced in 2021. Charges against City by the PL weren't brought until 2023. This case has been building for a while, at the latest it began when Newcastle were taken over and PL clubs voted in these rules in late 2021. We abstained and cited that the process was unlawful - so that's a big hint that we already had a legal opinion and we've probably spent the subsequent time building our case behind the scenes.

Not really. The challenge is not to the 2021 rules, it is to the February '24 amendment. It hasn't been building up for a while, it isn't retrospective. It happened at the time, and seems to be specific to that alone.

 

[Coatigan]

Biggest issue in this is the leak. Club responsible should be sanctioned if identified.

What makes you think it is coming from a club? Rather than the PL themselves. It is after all their chief legal counsel that has given formal amd exclusive commentary on it that the article freely quotes.

 

[hammocity]

But it won’t be “unlimited spending by all PL Clubs” Will it ? That will only apply to those Clubs who can afford it or are considered “investible” (a Dragons Den term). That’s maybe a handful of PL Clubs.

Not forgetting UEFA FFP Rules.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's hard to keep pace with this thread so I apologise if the information I ask for has been posted. I have read the Times article (thanks to PB) in which it defines an "associated party transaction" as a sponsorship deal between a club and a company to which the club's owners are linked. This seems vague in the extreme and very similar to a related party transaction. Could anyone provide a definition of an ATP as it is defined in the PL rules because my understanding is that City's objections are that the PL definition is actually very specific in the area it is concerned with and , therefore, clearly discriminatory.

I believe that City may also object to being told how much it can "charge" for such deals and I suspect companies will also object to limits on their commercial freedom but I am alarmed at what I see as yet another example of the curse that is affecting political life in the UK. Groups are victimised for reasons of colour, race, religion over many years. Then we get an "outrage" such as City spending billions and so something "has to be done" and the reaction from the persecuted is treated to a pack of lies and misrepresentation from a pack of the usual press hounds so that opinion is prepared for disgraceful attitudes to be normalised and outrageous measures accepted. Trump is a master of this approach and many of the Americans involved in club ownership are supporters of Trump .....

 

[sir baconface]

…. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.

Fair comment but I personally don’t care too much whether we are “innocent”….. only that we win.

The green-eyed knicker wetters from other fan bases have long judged us guilty of everything from ruining football to eating babies. We are now a much hated club and piss will boil whatever the outcome. We’re either “guilty of cheating as everyone knew all along” or we “cheated and bullied to defeat the charges”.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

It's hard to keep pace with this thread so I apologise if the information I ask for has been posted. I have read the Times article (thanks to PB) in which it defines an "associated party transaction" as a sponsorship deal between a club and a company to which the club's owners are linked. This seems vague in the extreme and very similar to a related party transaction. Could anyone provide a definition of an ATP as it is defined in the PL rules because my understanding is that City's objections are that the PL definition is actually very specific in the area it is concerned with and , therefore, clearly discriminatory.

I believe that City may also object to being told how much it can "charge" for such deals and I suspect companies will also object to limits on their commercial freedom but I am alarmed at what I see as yet another example of the curse that is affecting political life in the UK. Groups are victimised for reasons of colour, race, religion over many years. Then we get an "outrage" such as City spending billions and so something "has to be done" and the reaction from the persecuted is treated to a pack of lies and misrepresentation from a pack of the usual press hounds so that opinion is prepared for disgraceful attitudes to be normalised and outrageous measures accepted. Trump is a master of this approach and many of the Americans involved in club ownership are supporters of Trump .....

Yes , incredibly vague as I have commented. This alone should be enough without even going into the witch hunt stuff

 

[halfcenturyup]

What makes you think it is coming from a club? Rather than the PL themselves. It is after all their chief legal counsel that has given formal amd exclusive commentary on it that the article freely quotes.

The PL got permission from the arbitrators to communicate about the case with the clubs to prepare their defence, hence the comments from the PL legal counsel. Plausible deniability maybe, but I reckon the PL will be furious. These leaks don't do it any favours when they have charged the club with acting in bad faith.

 

[jonah62]

Are my ears deceiving me?
Stefan reckons City will lose this case

 

[brazilians hurt]

I'm not naive enough to believe City are doing this purely for the good of the game.

Maybe not the game but certainly IMHO the PL

 

[richards30]

Is there not a potentially bigger story that the premier league have been implementing rules illegal under UK law? How arrogant and dopey can they potentially be to have done that? We surely must have good reason to push this out there and think it’s likely to be true? Then the question needs to be asked why these rules were put in place, why the spending and investing rules keep changing and who are the main clubs behind it?