The Tribunal declares
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason
What more is needed?
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
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason
What more is needed?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
It was in the document.Source?
For them to be deemed null and void as well as unlawful. I’m no Competition law expert but it seems from what I’ve read to be unclear what the answer is. In those circumstances, I think the Tribunal would find a way to limit the damage to the original APT rules. As I have said even if they are null and void, the replacement regime will be implemented in line with 2021 APT. But of course, I may be completely wrong and APT may never return. Just giving a view.The Tribunal declares
(i) that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason
What more is needed?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Not quite. At CAS the two parties had to agree on the chair. For the PL tribunal it was the two panel members who picked the chair. I don't believe City or the PL had any say in it.Like CAS.
Cheers. I was unaware.It was in the document.
@slbsn could I ask what is the advantage of having shareholders loans. rather than equity, in the context of Arsenal, Brighton etc.? Is it just that equity level is subject to fluctuation (share price) and also it is easier to extract your cash if need be (ie for other business purposes)...or are there other more nuanced advantages, such as different tax implications?5-10 per cent I assume, yes.
Panja should be getting zilch respect on this forum after spending many years writing biased and dishonest articles about our club at the behest of others who don’t have our best interests at heart.
He has used every opportunity to paint us in the worst possible light and has been a fucking snide **** whilst doing it.
He’s one of a handful who have been paid shills.
He gets nothing but contempt from me the disingenuous parasite.
He has used every opportunity to paint us in the worst possible light and has been a fucking snide **** whilst doing it.
He’s one of a handful who have been paid shills.
He gets nothing but contempt from me the disingenuous parasite.
Champions again in 2012
Well-Known Member
Victimising bloody journalists. You cannot make it upOdd take. A journalist who is claiming to be objective (to the extent Panja is) should not try to mislead his audience by pushing a narrative as one thing when it is, in my view, misleading, preliminary and incomplete. He did that by pushing first a questionable summary re the databank (I stand by that he has good sources as does Delaney etc) and then exaggerating Leaf's summary. When I then pointed this out, he made a false allegation that I was punching down on a lawyer. It is not punching down to suggest to Panja that when his chosen lawyer on the subject, says something very different from his initial take, that Panja has a responsibility to broadcast that update to his audience as an objective journalist. You may disagree but it is hardly punching down. I am engaging with him on his journalism and objectivity not his legal understanding.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Well said that man!Panja should be getting zilch respect on this forum after spending many years writing biased and dishonest articles about our club at the behest of others who don’t have our best interests at heart.
He has used every opportunity to paint us in the worst possible light and has been a fucking snide **** whilst doing it.
He’s one of a handful who have been paid shills.
He gets nothing but contempt from me the disingenuous parasite.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
My view is increasingly coming round to the conclusion that the 3 members of the tribunal were founding members of the Stanley Unwin Appreciation Society and are sat there pissing themselves laughing at the chaos and confusion they've caused.For them to be deemed null and void as well as unlawful. I’m no Competition law expert but it seems from what I’ve read to be unclear what the answer is. In those circumstances, I think the Tribunal would find a way to limit the damage to the original APT rules. As I have said even if they are null and void, the replacement regime will be implemented in line with 2021 APT. But of course, I may be completely wrong and APT may never return. Just giving a view.
But like you, I could be completely wrong.