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

[kaz7]

Having read every post i am non the wiser but i know we have wanted the club to show some teeth , frustrated at our lack of fight back , seems the club waited for the right time , then boom, i am very happy

 

[Vic]

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…

Thanks. Let me test you on whether the APT rules don't exist. City told the other clubs that the rules were null and void.

No-one seemed to have explained why that was so (in public) but it seems clear from s.2 of the Competition Act.

Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition.

(1) Subject to section 3, agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices which—
(a) may affect trade within the United Kingdom, and
(b) have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom,
are prohibited unless they are exempt in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

(2) Subsection (1) applies, in particular, to agreements, decisions or practices which—
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

(3) Subsection (1) applies only if the agreement, decision or practice is, or is intended to be, implemented in the United Kingdom.

(4) Any agreement or decision which is prohibited by subsection (1) is void.


Start at the end. What is void? The decision of the PL to introduce APT rules - because the rules were judged unlawful under s.2(2), and are therefore prohibited under s.2(1) and the decision is therefore void under s.2(4).


Happy to learn if that interpretation is wrong. (Well, not happy.)

 

[waspish]

See the new supposed Sustainable rule coming in hey guess what it will effect us more with them than the ones now! It will also effect the rags but spurs will have a shit load to spend ! They must never sleep thinking up new innovative ways to "how can we stop Man City?

 

[dadnlad]

I'm not sure I entirely blame journos when supposedly expert lawyers haven't got on top of it.

but journalist have chance to say i dont understand so no comment from me

 

[chedinho]

Didn't the panel rule that although Everton said the loans were for the new stadium it wasn't the case?

I think they did.
I thought it was harsh. I don’t want to see them punished for investing in infrastructure even if it drives a nail in the coffin of our enemies.
Fingers crossed they sort that out favourably.

 

[tornandfrayed]

Great post overall but this bit is spot on. The reason the APT rules were introduced is laid bare in the tribunal's report.

The cartel felt that City were playing fast and loose with the related party rules, and weren't declaring companies like Etihad as related parties. The fact our auditors plainly agreed they weren't was of no consequence to them. There is no possible interpretation of IAS 24 whereby City & Etihad are related parties (apart from in the cartel's imagination).

So they persuaded the PL to come up with the rules about associated parties, where the PL can basically ignore long-established and agreed accounting standards and decide for themselves. There's even something in those rules that says the PL itself can decide who is a related party. It's also clear (and it's disappointing that the tribunal were clearly very naive over this) that Gulf States are the clear target.

I pointed out to Jonathan Wilson on X that this is the reason these cases are happening, not because wealthy clubs are capriciously seeking to undermine the PL or its rules.

This is why I'm always dubious when people say the lawyers/judges on these tribunals can be trusted to come to the correct decision because there have a reputation for probity and competence to uphold. It was clearly stated that the target was the "gulf state" owners - not hinted at or implied - they used the actual words. But they still accepted the pathetic excuse that it was just an example. I doubt you'd get away with that in your school home work.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

This is why I'm always dubious when people say the lawyers/judges on these tribunals can be trusted to come to the correct decision because there have a reputation for probity and competence to uphold. It was clearly stated that the target was the "gulf state" owners - not hinted at or implied - they used the actual words. But they still accepted the pathetic excuse that it was just an example. I doubt you'd get away with that in your school home work.

And it coincided with the Newcastle takeover. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

The only thing I can think of is that the panel may not have been aware of the history of this affair and the constant anti-Arab sentiment expressed in the media.

 

[ufo]

This is why I'm always dubious when people say the lawyers/judges on these tribunals can be trusted to come to the correct decision because there have a reputation for probity and competence to uphold. It was clearly stated that the target was the "gulf state" owners - not hinted at or implied - they used the actual words. But they still accepted the pathetic excuse that it was just an example. I doubt you'd get away with that in your school home work.

That’s fucked up big time. Racist cunts

 

[sir baconface]

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

Tell us more, please.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This has crossed my mind over the last few days. I do not believe that they can retrospectively review city’s deals without, at the same time retrospectively applying the PSR / APT shareholder loan element.

However as I read on here the other day if City go back to Etihad and 1st Abu Dhabi bank and, if they refuse to budge on increasing the sponsorship, this will mean that City then have to claim the shortfall from the EPL as damages. If I have understood this correctly we live in very interesting times!!

The thing with the big companies City deal with in AD is that they are international telecomms, airlines and banks and, as such, are subject to statutory and regulatory requirements which, I imagine, make it very difficult for them to get big deals approved, probably taking months. It's not a case of Mansour just telling his brother to hurry up a bit, or change this contract like this, please. It's such a simplistic view of the financial world from the PL to a problem and it is bound to cause delays and losses.

Especially if a contract is negotiated over months, takes months more to go through the sponsor's approval process and then the PL tell them to change it and start the approval process again. And then the PL likely has to tell them they were wrong and to go back to the original amount, starting the process all over again. It's unbelievable arrogance on the part of what is, in essence, a tin pot organisation.

It may be a great rule as a legal construct, but it is such a poorly thought out rule in terms of operations, almost unworkable on both sides, completely unnecessary and with only one objective, to stall the growth of City and Newcastle. How the club's legal team couldn't convince the arbitrators of that will always be a mystery to me. I was only partly joking when I said we needed more accountants there.

But they never asked me :)