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

[halfcenturyup]

Do you ever sleep mate? lol.

You appear to be omnipresent on this thread.

Thai times :) I was asleep when the latest developments happened. Just been catching up .....

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think his point is not that we haven’t been charged with that - because we have - but why would City feel the need to file inaccurate accounts when there was no FFP in place. Just like why would City hide a couple of million quid a year of Mancini’s contract at a time when we’d just spent £17m on a crock from Blackburn, all that £17m went through the books, and we were posting losses north of £100m.

I guess what he, and I, are trying to say is that we know we’ve been charged with filing inaccurate accounts but it makes no logical sense to have done that.

Fair enough, but that's a different argument.

I am pretty sure they will have alleged breaches of rules that existed at the time.

But the PL have to prove it and the question of why on earth would the club do any of this when FFP didn't exist is, I would imagine, one of the many lines of defence .....

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

A real un-named “big hitter” :)
Fucking laughable.

Big shithouse more like.

Come on shadowy figures, show yourselves. It’ll be over sooner and you’ll feel a lot less anxiety about the whole thing.
It’s not like the club don’t already know who you are…

 

[terraloon]

Fair enough, but that's a different argument.

I am pretty sure they will have alleged breaches of rules that existed at the time.

But the PL have to prove it and the question of why on earth would the club do any of this when FFP didn't exist is, I would imagine, one of the many lines of defence .....

It will be but if you look back in time before FFP/ PSR we know many clubs paid players in particular off the books why was it done if there wasn’t FFP or the like?

The simple answer is that it was done to avoid duties, taxes if you like.

I do agree that on the face of it the Mancini claim makes no sense at all when you look at the numbers but the question won’t be why it was done ( if that is proven ) it will simply be did it on balance happen

 

[Vic]

Having (finally) had time to read and (partially) digest the judgment, here are my thoughts for what they are worth.

First, I sort of get why the PL took the stance they did, and why some posters and commentators have called it something of a score draw. The bottom line is, if you strip it down and say 'how many of the individual battles did City win, and how many did they lose' the answer is the PL won something like 15-5. So I don't find it surprising that the PL have spun it the way they have, and there is a degree of justification there.

To decide whether a lawsuits has been, basically, either been successful or not, however - whether MCFC 'won' or lost' - it is important to understand what were the objectives of each party.

City's objective is stated in the decision at paragraph 4. City sought a declaration that the rules concerning APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded.

The PL's objective was plainly to uphold their rules and to uphold the two decisions that City challenged.

Then you can look at the final summary paragraph to see how each party did. Paragraph (i) says the APT rules breach sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998. So the APT rules are unlawful. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) say much the same thing, in relation to different aspects of the rules.

Then paragraphs (iv) to (vii) say that the two decisions referred to in paragraph 4 were unfair, and those decisions must be set aside.

By that yardstick, there is no doubt at all that City won and the PL lost. City's objectives were spelled out in the decision and they achieved them all.

What muddies the water - if you let it - is that City raised a lot of different arguments as to why the rules were unlawful, and why those decisions were unfair, and the majority of those arguments were not successful. This has allowed the PL and their useful idiots at the BBC to assert something of a score draw or even a PL win.

As I say, when you actually look at what the Club sought by the arbitration and the outcome, there is no doubt City won and the PL lost.

I have been trying to think of a non-legal analogy that might help. Say you were being tested for cancer. The doctor sits you down and says "we tested for lung cancer, you were clear on that. We tested for stomach cancer and you were clear on that. We tested for prostate cancer and you were clear on that. It was only testicular cancer that you tested positive for. "

Do you call that a win? Do you call that a score draw?

Do you fuck. You've been diagnosed with cancer and they're going to cut your bollocks off.

Most people would call that a complete fucking disaster.

That's a dramatic analogy I know, but the point that seems to have been glossed over by some is that something is either lawful or it is not. So when the Government gets taken to court about (say) the legality of the Rwanda scheme, five different arguments might be raised about why it is unlawful. Even if four fail, the success of the fifth tells you what the headlines will be the next day.

So here is my takeaway from the ruling: the PL drew up the new rules in a way which favoured certain teams who rely on interest free shareholder loans. They did that deliberately and knowingly and after having received advice it was probably unlawful. Then, they drew up procedural rules which effectively required City to be condemned without seeing the evidence on which they were being tried.

These are pretty basic flaws. The tribunal doesn't go this far - it's not its job - but it does raise the question why the rules were drawn up in the way they were.

One positive from the PL's perspective is that the tribunal has pretty much rejected the suggestion that the PL team that looks at these matters had any sort of agenda against City. They worked within the rules as they were drawn up, and the tribunal was pretty impressed that they went about their work diligently and conscientiously.

It wasn't their fault the rules were flawed.

This however brings me on to a wider point. I think I can summarise the tribunal's reasoning on a lot of the points City lost on in this way:

"The PL has a difficult job to do. It decided that it needed to do something to make sure that clubs don't go to the wire like Portsmouth, and the way it decided to do it was PSR. It could have done it in other ways but it chose this one, and that wasn't an objectively unreasonable decision. We recognise that they should be allowed a margin of appreciation in these matters. And the team they have brought in to deal with these matters don't have any sort of agenda against City. They just call it as they see it based on the evidence they have before them."

To put the same point in another way, the tribunal recognised that the regulator, the PL, has something of what you might call a margin of appreciation as to how it implements schemes which it judges to be in the best interests of the PL as a whole. The tribunal plainly gave the PL the benefit of the doubt in a number of situations, and as I say they were plainly satisfied that there was not a particular unspoken mission to target clubs from Gulf states.

The point that strikes me is this. Despite that margin of appreciation, despite being given the benefit of the doubt where they were, the PL was STILL found to have introduced rules and practice that were unlawful and unfair.

That is a major blow. The issue about interest-free loans from shareholders is a significant example of this. The rules were drawn up - deliberately - in a way that permitted some forms of subsidy from owners but prohibited others. Call me a cynic but it strikes me as rather likely that the reason for drawing this distinction might have something to do with who stood to benefit from the distinction that was being being drawn. (A clue: they play in red.)

But as I say, what I find really striking is that despite a tribunal giving the PL a pretty wide degree of latitude, MCFC still succeeded in showing the rules and the decisions made under them to be unlawful.

In football terms, the PL had a complete homer and he still gave us three penalties.

To my mind, that says all you need it to say about why the rules were drawn up the way they were.

Very comprehensive. A couple of observations, if I may.

"City's objective is stated in the decision at paragraph 4. City sought a declaration that the rules concerning APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded."

"That is rescinded" is unclear. (It confused me!) Did you mean "i.e. rescinded"? (Defining "set aside")

For the next but one paragraph, "Then you can look at the final summary paragraph to see how each party did. Paragraph (i) says the APT rules breach sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998. So the APT rules are unlawful. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) say much the same thing, in relation to different aspects of the rules", I'd add

"The APT rules are unlawful, therefore prohibited, and the decisions to introduce the rules and the amended rules are void under s.2(4) of the Competition Act 1988" (cited by the Tribunal). There are currently no APT rules."

What would also be helpful would be to explain that "deliberately and knowingly" favouring other clubs with shareholders' interest-free loans derives from the term "by object" (thanks to @Norbiton for highlighting that) and a bit on "We give declaratory relief", which I understand is effectively legalese for "City have won".

I don't like the cancer analogy. Others have suggested instead the murder trial with 15 counts of murder, but you're only convicted of 5. You're still a serial killer

 

[Gingers Dad]

You are talking about FFP? The years 2009/10 to 2014/15 aren't about breaching FFP, they are about filing false accounts in bad faith. The years after 2014/15 (once FFP was effective) are about filing false accounts in bad faith AND failing FFP if the accounts were corrected (amongst other things).

The rules for filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around.

Sorry yes I'm talking about ffp. My question is why would City need to file false accounts between 2009 and 2014, when there's no rules to break?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Like many pieces by Roan about City that have gone before, the form is telling. The story here is the that PL have fundamentally changed position on this judgment through the course of the week, despite stridently asserting an earlier position that allowed them to establish a narrative in the media that the outcome had been a draw, or possibly even a small win for them. This repositioning from the PL means the basis for this narrative has gone. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.

City said in their letter to other clubs that the PL statement was misleading and inaccurate, which this subsequent PL letter manifestly confirms. City’s were correct in what they were asserting. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.

The PL thereby did not attain sone sort of draw from this determination that could be dealt with on an ex tempore basis as they had previously claimed, and City were correct when they took the unusual step of pointing that out to their fellow members. City have been wholly vindicated on this point. And the PL shown to be wrong. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.

That is the story. And yet the piece plainly doesn’t present it like that.

Those two core factors are not tied together in the piece in a way that makes that the story. They are dissipated throughout the piece and way that misdirects the reader away from what is the fundamental story in relation to this statement. I have no doubt this was a conscious approach by Roan, who as you say, finished off the piece with the obligatory Pavlovian 115 reference, again to misdirect the reader from what has happened here.

It’s a fundamentally dishonest piece of journalism.

Mad there were some on here who couldn’t see this.

 

[Vic]

View attachment 134701

Once again, I find that the best analysis of any situation concerning City is on here, a humble football forum (provided you are happy to sift through it all). Pat yourselves on the back Bluemooners.

I can't believe so many eminent lawyers are actually getting this wrong. I'd not employ Simon Leaf if that quote is still his opinion rather than a "knee-jerk" comment without fully reading the tribunal decision. I suspect that 4 days on, even Delooney is less sure about the unanimity of lawyers.

 

[Gordyola]

i think it should have been a double petition, the removel of Masters and the immediate install of a football regulator, 100k signatures and its off the be heard in the house of commons from the minister of sport Lisa Nandy

If it was a .government petition not a Charge.org is my understanding

 

[manimanc]