The terms of the deal mean we can reclaim the money paid when/if we buy the freehold. (I think….please correct if wrong.)
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
But those rules must be both fair and legal. If they are not, the tyranny of the majority applies and the PL would be guilty of abusing its dominant position. Just voting rules in is not good enough after the panel’s verdict.
Lobbying is ok, provided the regulator has no skin in the game.
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,204
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I've never heard that before.
When the club was considering buying the freehold of the stadium in order to build a new one where the academy is there was a refusal by Sport England to allow it. It was political as I don't think they thought the optics of a purpose built stadium for the Commonwealth Games being demolished and replaced by a training ground would look great. It didn't make sense as it is purely a football stadium for use by us only but the outcome was the club didn't buy it outright.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
I always wonder about the contract between the PL and the club when the "City signed up to it" argument rears it's head. City became a shareholder in the PL (and a subscriber to it's then rules) when it was formed, lost its share when we were relegated, and regained it's share in 2001. When the FFP rules were introduced we were an established member and have remained so ever since.
As far as I'm concerned, the PL has a monopoly on the football industry at the top level so any business already operating at the top level of the industry has never had any option but to be a member of the PL in order to practice it's business.
The alternative, as it seems to me, is to "voluntarily" drop down a division and become a member of the Football League but be, permanently, denied access to the higher level (and its income streams) or cease trading altogether and all that entails. In short, it seems to me, that any contract between the PL and it's clubs is not one that the clubs have any realistic option but to "sign up to". At the risk of rousing the lawyers on here, that looks "coercive" to me.
The distinction is that if the APT rules are void, there are no APT rules. I suppose you could say the PL decision to introduce them did happen, but the tribunal ruling means it is as if the rules never existed.
The point, as I understand from City's offer to explain it, is that the PL cannot amend the existing rules. There are no rules.
They might want to use the wording of the non-existent rules as a starting point for drawing up new rules, but they cannot amend, tweak, or just add loans to the APT rules. At the moment, there are no APT rules.
The rules are not enforceable, because there are no rules.
And unlike the PL thieves, City did not agree to the agreement.
The legacy issue means we can’t abolish it and, I think, alterations have to get legacy permission, but there is nothing to stop us buying the freehold.
Moss Side's Finest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 1,445
Red shirt propaganda in full effect now, it's truly embarrassing as well as deeply deeply concerning for the sanctity of football
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
There's something wonderfully Quixotic in their constant quest to defy reality and continue their illusory crusade.