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

[bigA]

Perfectly summed up.

"Haemorrhoid clubs" - classic. Well, the coming months might just be the cream to clear their pile on.

These haemorrhoid clubs are now becoming the tagnut clubs.

 

[dickie davies]

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of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded.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.

I’ve been away all week so only really coming back to this news.

What seems significant is the letter Cliff wrote to the league of which the BBC seem to have seen or had a copy and chosen to paraphrase rather than produce in full…and then explain away the choice parts they’ve shown….as a result adding adding considerable confusion on my part to what the letter is actually about (other than the APT rules are illegal in their entirety).

I’m sure it was discussed in detail on here so could someone point me to the relevant pages..

Read @Chris in London 's summary

 

[cleavers]

Surely that proves my point? Investment gives you a chance to buy better players, get higher up the league, potentially win trophies, improve revenues?

Doesn't seem to be much help for (14th placed) united ;-)

 

[KS55]

I think Ziegler changed his views after the CAS decision. The Times were fed an essentially false story that City had lost and were facing Draconian punishment just before the CAS ruling. They, along with others, ran the story. It came from one of the leakers who put stuff out from the UEFA IC probably to put pressure on City to settle. As we now know the press were duped and City were cleared because UEFA had no evidence. The Times reporting since then has been much more balanced. Samuel joining would also have helped.

I wouldn’t trust Ziegler an inch. He believed that propaganda video a couple of years ago about Etisalat and the mystery £100m and called it the biggest scandal in football. It was plainly obvious that the video was propaganda but Z couldn’t see that and trashed us in the Times.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well, we did. We were part of the FCAG and didn’t challenge that particular recommendation at the time, we voted for the set to be included. We then subsequently voted against the implementation of the full set of APT rules.

Like I said, if we did that knowing that particular recommendation was the most likely aspect to be considered unlawful, that’s some proper 3d chess going on by voting to include it.

Not looking for an argument but voting for recommendations for a proposed rule change is very different from voting for the final proposal. A lot can and presumably did happen between the two votes, including two more FCAG meetings. Differing legal opinions being one, I imagine.

At no point did the club as a member shareholder vote to exclude shareholder loans from the APT rules. I can't see how that is debatable.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Where's that Arsenal fan who likes telling us the media are right and we're wrong. Wanker.

 

[Bluewonder]

I wouldn’t trust Ziegler an inch. He believed that propaganda video a couple of years ago and called it the biggest scandal in football. It was plainly obvious that the video was propaganda but Z couldn’t see that and trashed us in the Times.

Yep. Him now writing in our favour doesn't mean he's a good journalist. Especially when there's abundant evidence to the contrary.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I think a lot of the other clubs owners are happy to accept their fate as being below the red cartel in the pecking order. Not having to spend too much on players but enough to stay in the PL and maybe winning a league cup every 10 years.

What they can’t accept is a club they consider at or below their level winning everything. It makes them look bad in front of their own fans so they can’t just sit back and let it happen.

Unfortunately many of their fans go along with this as they suffer from an inferiority complex when it comes to the cartel clubs and are more than happy accepting their place in the old pecking order.

I'm completely with Rammy. If you're a lower level club why would you back the status quo, keeping yourself in servitude to the red cartel whilst they pocket all the trophies and riches.

I get the idea that you don't want one or two clubs who can massively outspend any other clubs and defy economic normality but the reality is the more money coming into the game the better for these clubs as they will be the beneficiaries of transfer fees and additional revenue that's accrued. It would also make the Premier league the most attractive league in the world attracting the best players. Of course Tebas won't want that as it damages la liga.

Also, the likes of our owners and the Saudis are business people they don't just want to continually throw money down the drain, even if they can afford to. Otherwise they would do that across every asset class in every business they own, but they don't.

I'd agree with some kind of ceiling but a ceiling that's high enough that allows lesser clubs today to invest and grow their football brand/business, irrespective of revenues. That's just good business sense and why these clubs with intelligent owners can't see that and side with MCFC is beyond me.

 

[give it to gordon]

Where's that Arsenal fan who likes telling us the media are right and we're wrong. Wanker.

Think he is abit worried about interest free loans :)

 

[johnny crossan]

I wouldn’t trust Ziegler an inch. He believed that propaganda video a couple of years ago about Etisalat and the mystery £100m and called it the biggest scandal in football. It was plainly obvious that the video was propaganda but Z couldn’t see that and trashed us in the Times.

Ziegler was the Portugese extortionist's bagman, a despicable individual.