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

[Gordyola]

I don’t disagree but the point I am trying to make the panel is just that an arbitration panel can be appealed by the PL (which is highly unlikely) but irrespective process has to be followed to remove rules that a panel has given a ruling on

For the avoidance of doubt

Is arbitration legally binding in the UK?


An arbitrator's award is legally binding and in England and Wales a party can ask the Court to enforce the award if the other party ignores it. The Court will give a judgment in line with the award and that judgment can then be enforced against the other party.

Hence why Simon Cliff's letter said "further legal proceedings with further legal costs"

 

[terraloon]

There was always zero chance of any appeal, unless the arbitrators were all pissed on sherry on judgement day and flipped a coin.

As I said highly unlikely but the panel , as I said in an earlier post, hasn’t save points around how fair value is processed or the impact of owners loans actually said that APT isn’t valid they have left matters hanging there

 

[wolviedinho]

You would think if we were getting relegated due to the 115 charges the Premier league would try and delay any rules changes leaving City without a vote and without a legal challenge.

I thought the ffp rules were designed to stop clubs going to the wall? Instead they are used to push certain clubs into extinction. The ‘good’ intention went badly wrong somewhere along the line.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Interestingly didn’t City challenge the commence of an PL arbitration panel in the HC?

The more you read into this matter the more you realise that the panel despite its seniority and eminence didn’t actually fully close the case to a degree that’s manifested itself by the fact the two parties don’t even agree the current position of APT.
If you look yes they made comment about the need to include calculated interest in APT calculations linked to PSR but their authority included the option to actually just say APT rules are this or that but they didn’t their focus seems to have been purely dealing with challenges detailed and not the overarching question

The tribunal hasn't finalised the case. They have given time to the two parties to agree how they want to proceed before issuing to City, if the parties can't agree, whatever injunctive relief is appropriate, any damages required and the apportionment of costs.

 

[terraloon]

On jurisdiction iirc, not judgment.

Maybe but the fact that there was a challenge on jurisdiction by its very definition you are challenging any judgement

 

[halfcenturyup]

As I said highly unlikely but the panel , as I said in an earlier post, hasn’t save points around how fair value is processed or the impact of owners loans actually said that APT isn’t valid they have left matters hanging there

See other reply.

 

[cheekybids]

I share your crocodile tears.

Technically you may be correct. However, if I were them I would argue that they would have made different business decisions, therefore revised APT requires revised PSR.

Rather than get into a new wrangle, I’d imagine a compromise would be struck here in the interests of everyone moving forward.

Would that require them to go to arbitration? How unsavoury…..

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe but the fact that there was a challenge on jurisdiction by its very definition you are challenging any judgement

I doubt you can challenge jurisdiction after there has been a judgment :)

The reasons you can challenge an arbitration are pretty clear from the Section X rules and the Arbitration Act. And interpretation of a matter of law isn't one of them. A challenge of jurisdiction is.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

They knew that excluding shareholder loans was unlawful but chose to ignore it after a club owner who has lent his club a substantial amount of money, interest free, asked them to exclude it. So they did.

Never mind Masters resigning, the NEDs who constitute the rest of the board should also resign over that as they're supposed to provide oversight.

PB. Enjoying your posts. Memory going a bit. The Feb 24 ammends included (I recall) club owners/ shareholders personal immunity from prosecution should rules be challenged.

If my memory is functioning would this have been a signal that this group were always wary that the tightened rules were questionable?

 

[lancs blue]

As I said highly unlikely but the panel , as I said in an earlier post, hasn’t save points around how fair value is processed or the impact of owners loans actually said that APT isn’t valid they have left matters hanging there

There is a second part of the panel's award to be published.