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

[manimanc]

Our lawyers on the phone to masters and the other shithouses at the Premier League.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

which chairman??

It has to be one of the clubs where shareholder loans are a major factor, so Everton, Brighton or possibly Arsenal. My guess would be Bloom at Brighton, although given Everton's parlous financial state you could also look at them.

 

[Cobwebcat]

To discuss what? I’m a numbskull because I didn’t realise either :-) :-)

I think it is to give more clarification of what needs to be done and, if City and the PL can’t decide costs and or compensation, to rule on that too.

It would also be sensible to check that any new rules were passed by the panel before implementation to prevent further challenges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Rumoured Brighton, allegedly

That was the exec who started the whole ATP ball rolling five days after the Newcastle takeover with his "stop the Gulf states" email.

The name of the exec who wanted shareholder loans out of APT is redacted, but he was part of the FCAG, so that narrows it down to the usual suspects.

 

[Albeeeert]

Free advertising? Sounds like a breach of APT or FFP or whatever. Cue a 15 year retrospective investigation (or retroactive if you're in Thailand).

The PL's rules have never prevented owners taking money out of clubs with below market value deals, which shows that the rules were never about protecting the profit and sustainability of any club outside of the cartel.

 

[Vester]

We are only deemed evil for two reasons.
* Having a vastly superior business model I.e. not American
* Being hugely successful as a result

The average PL fan has been brainwashed into thinking an owner that wants to invest money in his club is "bad", and billionaire owners with no sporting ambition whatsoever only using a club as a way to make themselves even richer (usually at the clubs expense) is "good". It's just jealousy combined with some xenophobia.

I could somewhat understand rival fans arguments if we every year had spent 5 times as much as everyone else on signings and they aren't even close to be able to compete (financially). But right now their argument is "you are almost spending as much as us on transfers, thats unfair. Fair would be you only being allowed to spend a third of what we are spending because history", which makes their entire point just completely idiotic.

 

[Albeeeert]

This gets more complicated- I thought the panel had issued their full judgment

What is the second part related to? Compensation for City? Or an appeals process- or something else?

Injunctive relief, damages and costs.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think it is to give more clarification of what needs to be done and, if City and the PL can’t decide costs and or compensation, to rule on that too.

 

[KS55]

To discuss what? I’m a numbskull because I didn’t realise either :-) :-)

First, to listen to the parties’ solution to rules found to be unlawful or to give guidance on how to action the findings. Second, to decide the level of damages City can obtain. Third, to decide costs liability.
Fourth, to increase the earnings of Pannick, who is a bit short at the mo.
PS I see that has been posted above while I was typing.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

Not really the same, and regardless Leicester successfully appealed the PL decision.

Maybe so mate but, to my admittedly layman’s view, if the rules were unlawful then they need to be redrafted retrospectively to make them historically legal.
Otherwise you’d have clubs taking legal action left right and centre “we’ve been punished under rules they were unlawful, but that club hasn’t because the rules were written incorrectly” etc.

If we win the 115 case on top of this, the whole landscape of English football will change forever. And I’m here for it.