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

[the blue panther]

Looking at the current "115" hearing, as it has now come to the attention of the P.L. via the first tribunal decision, that City didn't have a flat pitch to play on, due to the unlawfulness of the P.L.'s own rules, I don't see how the present tribunal can ignore submissions by City trying to refer to that decision. Last week it was reported that City's attempts to reference the recent decision were being ignored by the current panel.
If the current panel are standing on ceremony and saying that City can't amend ANY argument they hadn't previously given notice of prior to the hearing, that's a very dangerous course for this panel to follow, bearing in mind the "unlawfulness" which has already been found within the rules.
That to me is contrary to natural justice, and a recipe for further litigation, especially when taking account of the strength of that 1st tribunal panel, who came down very strongly in City's favour - irrespective of the subsequent misleading narrative of the P.L. and the media generally.
Of course, the P.L. lawyers could accept and recognise that finding of unlawfulness if they wished - and allow City to use that finding - if they were reasonable, but they can't (yet!) risk all the 115 charges falling apart and being thrown out, I guess, so the argument will continue.... for a while - but I wonder if it's going to dawn on the P.L. soon that they need to close this all off very quickly now; settle with City; then redefine ALL the relevant rules?
What a can of worms we've opened.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Are they ticking over?

Quite nicely in attacking City.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

There is clearly nothing illegal about soft loans, per se.

But here is a question. Is it actually legal to prevent an owner funding a company with soft loans? For example, directors of a company that owns a club have a Companies Act responsibility to act in the interest of the company's shareholders. There may be good reasons why the directors consider soft loans to be in the interests of the shareholders. Who are the PL to say they can't do that? Is it not abuse of a dominant position to force an owner to restructure its funding (that is what the current APT rules require), potentially unfavourably to the shareholders.

It's the same question as forcing a club to renegotiate downwards (or upwards!) a sponsorship contract which was accepted by both parties as being to the benefit of the shareholders.

Which responsibility takes precedence? The responsibility of the directors of the club, or of the club owners, to their shareholders, or the contractual responsibility set out in the PL rules?

Or maybe I am missing something simple. It wouldn't be the first time ......

Personally I believe that the limitation of owner investment is a clear breach of competition law but this was not the issue in question in our recent case. The club had taken a pinch in 2013 because owner investment was not envisaged because of our rapidly growing revenue. Sponsorship was very much a live issue and two of our deals had fallen foul of the new regs, which we considered unlawful. At the same time other streams of revenue were not brought within these regs even though the source of the revenue couldn't be any more "related" or "associated" or whatever and this made the terms of competition unfair and unlawful.

So, what I'm pointing out is that such soft loans are in no way illegal, anymore so than a sponsorship deal. But if sponsorships are to be in line with market value it is not lawful if some other forms of revenue are not.

If your point is that limiting owner investment is unlawful I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but I think Khaldoon would say quite simply that that is someone else's fight .... Newcastle perhaps?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Do you think the apparently fair verdict of our first panel will be shown by the one currently in progress?
I am fearful that they may be persuaded to try to save the callapse of the old PL.

Up to now we have done well when proper Judges have been involved. They have their own reputations to defend.

 

[Dribble]

Don't you just love Dick Dastardly.

This fella? No...

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

But surely the PL will need to adjust these rules and make them apply retroactively …..or have some type of amnesty which is also retroactive…

At least until the loans are paid back

 

[If I die in the Kippax St]

This is precisely the point. Many both inside and outside the media, either by choice or through ignorance, do not grasp the reality. I'm fairly sure it does not matter whether the interest is actually charged and paid however and shown in the annual accounts. What is important is that to level the playing field in terms of PSR then a notional commercial interest rate must be applied for PSR calculations at FMV as if the borrowing by the club from owner investors, directors et al (aka related parties) had been obtained at arms length on the open market. In effect this would mean that say Arsenal's loans of around £250 million would have a charge of say 8-10% per year applied for PSR calculations. That's in excess of £20 million a year added to their costs for PSR purposes. This to me is as close and clear to a definition of 'financial doping' as we can get
This has been made crystal clear by the tribunal in their rulings.
Liverpool and Brighton face a similar challenge.

Actually is does matter whether interest is charged and applied to the profit and loss account which affects the bottom line. It also matters that any loans need to be disclosed in the balance sheet as a creditor thus affecting the financial strength of a business/organisation. However I do agree with your main point on financial doping

 

[flb]

Doubt she’d be wearing swimming costume, got a vag like a blootered pheasant

Surely you mean like a butchers bin ?

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

But surely the PL will need to adjust these rules and make them apply retroactively …..or have some type of amnesty which is also retroactive…

Won't the tribunal have to acceot that any new regs are lawful?

 

[inchy14]

And that is the point.

The new rules that Masters was spluttering about last week, could well be painstakingly re-constructed over a sufficient period of time, and they could, though it's unlikely, produce a robust masterpiece of meticulous exactitude, compliant with UK commercial law in every aspect, or maybe not, but even if they pull off this masterpiece of in-house corporate legislation, it'd still be a crock of shit.

Because it's not the slap dash, make it up on the hoof, nature of these rules that's the real problem, though that was one of the reasons we scored such a significant victory, it's their purpose.

And their purpose cannot be addressed without stating what it is, as opposed to what is spun, and the biggest clue to what it is, is to ask who is best served by these rules? And to get there you follow the money, in this case "old" money, and when you do that you'll find where the real power lies in the Premier League, and what really motivates these powers behind the throne.

Everyone in here knows who the real power brokers in the Premier League are, what drives them and so on, and that Masters is simply their puppet. It is no coincidence that City were happy to take our UEFA case to CAS, happy to take this APT nonsense to arbitration and likewise the 115, because each time we do we're taking these trumped up charges away from the festering shit pits of self interest that spawned them, away from the power brokers and their puppets, and into the light of arbitration, governed by law and facts and reality.

That's why we're confident we'll smash the 115, because we know that nothing these self interested fuckers cook up can stand scrutiny when exposed to impartial legal professionals.

Great post.