Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
If we failed what are they moaning about?
Also, we didn’t start it…they charged us first on 115 so ner.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Also, we didn’t start it…they charged us first on 115 so ner.
I was involved whilst working with HMRC with a non league club administration there were significant conflicts so couldn’t stray into areas where there would have been issues such as I had no dealings with wages or contracts however I can assure you that the constraints , strange requirements if you like, imposed by the footballing authorities if you wanted to firstly be affiliated and secondly if you want to play at certain levels meant you have to provide facilities that aren’t required under any law but you simply have to provide or don’t get to compete.Oh. Fair enough, then. It's that simple?
Nothing about "abuse of a dominant position requiring directors to foresake their Companies Acts responsibility to perform their duties for the benefit of their shareholders", or some such?
A little disappointing, but I can understand the principle, at least :)
A contract has two sides, though. What about the third party? What right does the PL have to insist that a third party, who doesn't even want to come into your house, also has to take his shoes off?
For instance the FA require that in clubs A&M there are several inclusions one of my favourites is that if a club / company goes into liquidation after settling any liabilities the surplus isn’t shared as would be the norm any sums have to be donated to local charities. There is no legal requirement for such a clause but unless it’s there in the A&M then you don’t get to play .
Similarly if can’t show tenure of your ground for a certain length of time you don’t get to play. Where in company law does it say that to trade you have to have a lease for x number of months?
Or what about fit and proper test ? We can all see the merits but if company law doesn’t require someone to be forbidden from being a director or an owner how can football? Should or would someone be justified to challenge if say they wanted to invest say 11% in another club?
Or what about the football creditor rule? That is clearly contrary to Insolvency Law but despite challenge an opinion is that the footballing authorities rules usurp statute.
My point over the last few days was that like it or not a process now has to follow my belief was, and I think Chris confirms that APT remains albeit unenforceable till challenged clauses are removed by way of formal vote but that vote could I believe could be simply to suspend them.
Irrespective we have to accept that sometimes the rules may well onerous and indeed could be open to challenge but the dilemma is how far can challenges go?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
The right is that if a club wants to play in the PL it must abide by the PL rules.
What right do I have to tell you to take your shoes off? None whatsoever
unless you want to come in my house.
Can he wear his city slippers?
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Oh. Fair enough, then. It's that simple?
Nothing about "abuse of a dominant position requiring directors to foresake their Companies Acts responsibility to perform their duties for the benefit of their shareholders", or some such?
A little disappointing, but I can understand the principle, at least :)
A contract has two sides, though. What about the third party? What right does the PL have to insist that a third party, who doesn't even want to come into your house, also has to take his shoes off?
Any lurking foot fetishists likes this.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
What are Chelsea up to? In some ways you have to admire Chelsea…they do stuff that we can’t understand and yet somehow it seems to work.
Wow. A "paper of record"? Trashing its own diminished reputation. They should have let the Sheikh buy it.Red shirt propaganda in full effect now, it's truly embarrassing as well as deeply deeply concerning for the sanctity of football
View attachment 134902
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 problem is that competition law is designed to stop one company, or a cartel, abusing its position. City are in a cartel (the PL), because it is effectively the only game in town, but are trying to stop a cartel within the cartel!
We're getting almost into another thread, about the structure , governance and probity of the PL board.
As for FFP, I wonder if normal competition rules are inadequate for sports. What would stop a Musk spending billions on one team? Or several teams.
Stagecoach did predatory pricing to take over smaller bus companies. The law should have stopped it. Companies should not use a dominant position to exclude new entrants or smaller competitors. But what about when you need competitors to be viable in order to operate? In a competition, for instance?
Stoned Rose
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.
Interesting point mate. Popcorn out.
This is nonsense. Telegraph I mean, not MSF.Red shirt propaganda in full effect now, it's truly embarrassing as well as deeply deeply concerning for the sanctity of football
View attachment 134902
Last edited:
The panel agreed with your last sentence, ie they found that the PL had abused its dominant position.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.
There is a long way to go to clear up this mess.