Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,265
Very comprehensive. A couple of observations, if I may.
"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of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded."
"That is rescinded" is unclear. (It confused me!) Did you mean "i.e. rescinded"? (Defining "set aside")
For the next but one paragraph, "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", I'd add
"The APT rules are unlawful, therefore prohibited, and the decisions to introduce the rules and the amended rules are void under s.2(4) of the Competition Act 1988" (cited by the Tribunal). There are currently no APT rules."
What would also be helpful would be to explain that "deliberately and knowingly" favouring other clubs with shareholders' interest-free loans derives from the term "by object" (thanks to @Norbiton for highlighting that) and a bit on "We give declaratory relief", which I understand is effectively legalese for "City have won".
I don't like the cancer analogy. Others have suggested instead the murder trial with 15 counts of murder, but you're only convicted of 5. You're still a serial killer
thanks for that.
A few posters seemed to be unsure what “set aside” actually means so it’s just a word to explain that.
I don’t think you can say there are no APT rules. The rules exist because they were voted on by the requisite majority of PL clubs. The rules are unenforceable because they are unlawful, but that is not to say they don’t exist. A fine distinction perhaps but quite an important one.
As you say “declaratory relief” just means a declaration the the APT rules are unlawful. That declaration is binding on the PL and any other club can rely on it. The two APT decisions affect only City and the PL but the declaration affects all 20 PL members.
I don’t like the murder analogy. 15 counts of murder is 15 different offences. So on some you do win. A better analogy would be a charge that the victim was poisoned, then stabbed, then electrocuted then suffocated and the prosecution only land the stabbing. It’s enough in itself even if some of the other allegations don’t succeed.
Finally I’m going to do a longer post about why the rules were drafted as they were. There’s quite a lot to unpack there…