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

petrusha said:
This thread is a bit crazy. By my calculation, there have been around 6,000 posts since Monday lunchtime and I haven't had time to read even a majority of them, let alone all. This one, however, is IMO worth coming back to.

As someone who's also been busy all week in addition to being a bit under the weather and has only just had a chance to read the entire document myself, I enjoyed the above contribution as well as being grateful for it. I've been rather surprised this week, and not in a pleasant way, by the manner in which people who should know better have chosen to score the Panel's determination like a boxing match.

The only way to assess things properly is to examine what has happened in the light of City's objectives at the outset. I wrote on this board back in the summer sometime that MCFC certainly wouldn't be seeking a declaration any form of control over APT infringes competition law. I have something of a background in the field in the dim and distant past (so, while as nowhere near as eminently qualifed to judge these matters than the esteemed panel, I know far more about it than your average punter and a million times more about it than your average football journalist). It was absolutely clear to me that such an aim lacked any vestige of realism. City's advisers will have been fully aware of this, too.

Yet the absence of such a determination by the Panel was laughably painted by some as a win for the PL. Not so. City were seeking to have the APT rules declared unlawful as currently constituted, preferably in a way that would require some kind of significant redraft. Meanwhile, over the summer, we had Martin Samuel - clearly briefed by the club - allege that what had upset MCFC was the treatment of and time taken to process the club's applications under the rules. City have prevailed on whether the rules as a whole is lawful, as well as the manner in which our applications have been processed.

Now, events are clearly taking place in private and for once they aren't yet being leaked, which suggests difficulties for the PL given the way that so much which is to the club's detriment finds its way into the public domain. The Panel's determination has given MCFC a strong position when new rules are drafted. To be lawful, news rules have to cover the previously omitted subject of shareholder loans, which gives City, if we're politically savvy enough to have won over sufficient allies to create a blocking vote, scope to demand concessions to us in return for our reciprocal compromises.

None of this is remotely good news for the PL, despite the way it was portrayed initially by lapdog media commentators and complicit experts who seemed not to be giving proper thought to the issues. Such a reaction just emphasises the sheer otherness of football, which for as long as it has existed seems to have operated under the stultifyingly arrogant belief that it should operate as a law unto itself, in glorious isolation from legal and regulatory regimes applicable in other spheres.

It's beyond me that anyone could look at what the PL has been shown, as a regulatory body, to have done and think that the determination exposing this is somehow satisfactory for the authority. In any other field, there'd be resignations and questions being asked in Parliament urging serious reform of the regulator in question.

I have one final point. Many on here have claimed that the view of City as cheats is to embedded in the public consciousness ever to change and that our reputation will be stained forever in the eyes of many neutral fans. I don't concur. Of course, I may be wrong, but I believe that this week's events have started to bring into the public domain information about the "organised and clear" attempts from rivals to finish City as a serious force at the top of the English and European game.

My guess is that this will be further borne out when we finally receive a decision regarding the so-called 115 charges. If so, and if we're substantially vindicated, I suspect that we'll have a powerful narrative that will be of significant allure to a new generation of fans. We'll be the club that rivals couldn't beat on the pitch so tried to nobble by nefarious means - and failed. Let's see how it plays out, but I'm already looking forward to it.

P.S. I saw a discussion on this thread about the Palace home game in December 1987. That's definitely worth coming back to, but it'll have to be tomorrow as I'm off to spend Saturday evening with my missus.
Click to expand...
As usual brilliant takes from you and Chris. I am increasingly starting to feel a change in the overall narrative too, something I’ve long banged on about on here. If this continues to play out in this manner we have a PR opportunity here which we have to grasp.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
The Georgies will benefit from City's winning fight against all comers in England and Europe during the the last 10 years.

Their ugly, deluded and mince thick fans have shown very little appreciation or alignment with City or our fans due to their complete self absorbed culture.

Fuck em ridgid....We'll continue to look after our selves
Click to expand...
Haemeroid clubs...just painful, hanging, adding nothing, just leaching !!
 
petrusha said:
This thread is a bit crazy. By my calculation, there have been around 6,000 posts since Monday lunchtime and I haven't had time to read even a majority of them, let alone all. This one, however, is IMO worth coming back to.

As someone who's also been busy all week in addition to being a bit under the weather and has only just had a chance to read the entire document myself, I enjoyed the above contribution as well as being grateful for it. I've been rather surprised this week, and not in a pleasant way, by the manner in which people who should know better have chosen to score the Panel's determination like a boxing match.

The only way to assess things properly is to examine what has happened in the light of City's objectives at the outset. I wrote on this board back in the summer sometime that MCFC certainly wouldn't be seeking a declaration any form of control over APT infringes competition law. I have something of a background in the field in the dim and distant past (so, while as nowhere near as eminently qualifed to judge these matters than the esteemed panel, I know far more about it than your average punter and a million times more about it than your average football journalist). It was absolutely clear to me that such an aim lacked any vestige of realism. City's advisers will have been fully aware of this, too.

Yet the absence of such a determination by the Panel was laughably painted by some as a win for the PL. Not so. City were seeking to have the APT rules declared unlawful as currently constituted, preferably in a way that would require some kind of significant redraft. Meanwhile, over the summer, we had Martin Samuel - clearly briefed by the club - allege that what had upset MCFC was the treatment of and time taken to process the club's applications under the rules. City have prevailed on whether the rules as a whole is lawful, as well as the manner in which our applications have been processed.

Now, events are clearly taking place in private and for once they aren't yet being leaked, which suggests difficulties for the PL given the way that so much which is to the club's detriment finds its way into the public domain. The Panel's determination has given MCFC a strong position when new rules are drafted. To be lawful, news rules have to cover the previously omitted subject of shareholder loans, which gives City, if we're politically savvy enough to have won over sufficient allies to create a blocking vote, scope to demand concessions to us in return for our reciprocal compromises.

None of this is remotely good news for the PL, despite the way it was portrayed initially by lapdog media commentators and complicit experts who seemed not to be giving proper thought to the issues. Such a reaction just emphasises the sheer otherness of football, which for as long as it has existed seems to have operated under the stultifyingly arrogant belief that it should operate as a law unto itself, in glorious isolation from legal and regulatory regimes applicable in other spheres.

It's beyond me that anyone could look at what the PL has been shown, as a regulatory body, to have done and think that the determination exposing this is somehow satisfactory for the authority. In any other field, there'd be resignations and questions being asked in Parliament urging serious reform of the regulator in question.

I have one final point. Many on here have claimed that the view of City as cheats is to embedded in the public consciousness ever to change and that our reputation will be stained forever in the eyes of many neutral fans. I don't concur. Of course, I may be wrong, but I believe that this week's events have started to bring into the public domain information about the "organised and clear" attempts from rivals to finish City as a serious force at the top of the English and European game.

My guess is that this will be further borne out when we finally receive a decision regarding the so-called 115 charges. If so, and if we're substantially vindicated, I suspect that we'll have a powerful narrative that will be of significant allure to a new generation of fans. We'll be the club that rivals couldn't beat on the pitch so tried to nobble by nefarious means - and failed. Let's see how it plays out, but I'm already looking forward to it.

P.S. I saw a discussion on this thread about the Palace home game in December 1987. That's definitely worth coming back to, but it'll have to be tomorrow as I'm off to spend Saturday evening with my missus.
Click to expand...
Well written as usual Peter. Glad to hear your feeling better. Enjoy your night out
 
Didsbury Dave said:
As usual brilliant takes from you and Chris. I am increasingly starting to feel a change in the overall narrative too, something I’ve long banged on about on here. If this continues to play out in this manner we have a PR opportunity here which we have to grasp.
Click to expand...
Zabba on the couch going over old city games rather than Ratty and his nostalgia shows on Sly would be a massive breakthrough for me.
 
petrusha said:
The only way to assess things properly is to examine what has happened in the light of City's objectives at the outset.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear you've been under the weather. You've never been the same since you died have you. :-)

I've just put together a piece for my blog about the case, funnily enough, and I wrote this, which took the position you outlined above. What were our objectives and what was the result of those. Here's the relevant part:

"The details of the outcome of the arbitration over City’s case against the PL, over some of its financial rules, were published recently. This set off a flurry of claims and counterclaims over who won and lost. I’m not a lawyer, bar taking a Commercial Law course as part of my Economics degree, so I’m not going to get into complex legal arguments over this. It seems even the lawyers don’t agree, partly because the decision leaves key questions unanswered. Hence why it’s a ‘partial’ verdict.

But, for me, if you want to understand who came out of it more satisfied, you need to look at (a) City’s reasons for bringing this case and (b) the outcome. I think this is pretty clear and I’ll explain why.

In the 175-page document that the 3-man panel produced, paragraph 4 on page 4 in the Introduction says: In this arbitration MCFC seeks, inter alia a declaration that Rules E.55-79 of the Rules which concern Associated Party Transactions are unlawful and an order that two decisions of the Board of the PL concerning APTs to which MCFC were party should be set aside. The APT Rules were introduced in December 2021 and were amended in February 2024. The challenge is to both the APT Rules and the amended APT rules

The two decisions referred to above involved the rejection of two commercial contracts, with Etihad Aviation Group (EAG) and First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB), on the grounds that they were evidently above Fair Market Value (FMV). There was a third deal, with Emirates Palace Hotel, which was initially rejected as being above FMV, but that decision was later rescinded after consultation between City and the PL.

There’s a number of things I want to explore in this article beyond the question of who ‘won’ so skipping ahead to page 164 of the document, where the three panel members sum up their findings, it says:
  • That the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998, as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans, and for no other reason.
  • That the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998, as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans, and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason.
  • That the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment on the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason.
  • That the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not give MCFC an opportunity to respond to the [redacted] Benchmarking Analysis prior to reaching its decision and for no other reason.
  • That the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not provide MCFC, prior to the PL’s final determination, with the [redacted] Databank transactions entered into by other clubs, which the Board referred to in its final determination and for no other reason.
  • That in making its decision with regard to the FAB transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 3 months and thereby a breach of rule E.64.
  • That in making its decision with regard to the EP transaction there was an unreasonable delay of about 2 months and thereby a breach of rule E.64
In summary, City sought a declaration that the APT rules were unlawful, and they got that. They sought the setting aside of the PL’s decision that the two contracts with EAG and FAB were above FMV, and they got that. That looks like a significant win to me."

Enjoy your evening with Mrs B.
 
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.