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

[halfcenturyup]

Portsmouth went into administration in early 2012. And we still don't have any rules about debt or shareholder loans in PSR. It's really hard to buy the argument that the amended rules had anything to do with Portsmouth therefore.

The PL seem to have had quite an easy ride over the issue of why they introduced the original APT rules when they did, so soon after the Newcastle takeover, while simultaneously claiming this was a reaction to something that happened nearly 10 years earlier. It's disappointing that neither our legal team, nor the tribunal members raised this.

Also why they seem to have prima facie accepted the explanation of the email sent from (let's hazard a guess) Daniel Levy referring to 'Gulf states' but where verbal evidence was given that this was effectively not specifically aimed at Gulf states but was just an example.

I am still thinking it suited both parties to drop the subject and let it play out in the 115 case.

 

[Vic]

As if this bellend or anyone at the Premier League is going to get the 115 on us. Not a fuckin chance.

The way they've handled this shitshow goes to show you they haven't got a scoobies what they are doing.

Masters has committed professional suicide.

Does he have a profession?

 

[cheekybids]

I suspect Masters doesn't want to face the clubs until he has an idea of how much compensation they have to pay City which will hit them all in the pockets.

 

[manimanc]

Does he have a profession?

Yes. Chief prick.

 

[Blue Mist]

I was self employed rather than owning a big business but reckon I could make a better hash of this than the PL.

One thing springs to mind, if I was Masters I would have told the office junior to print out Uefas FFP. I'd then tippex out UEFA and write in Premier League.
Problem solved.

Except the red cartel wouldn't allow it.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

If the law was that easy, the PL wouldn't have got it wrong. And their "practising" lawyers would have told them to save their money and give in.

I think there was some evidence of them rejecting external legal advice around the word “evidently” in connection with the FMV assessment of AP transactions

 

[citizen_maine]

I think there was some evidence of them rejecting external legal advice around the word “evidently” in connection with the FMV assessment of AP transactions

wasn't it their own legal advice?

 

[meltonblue]

Nobody is proposing outlawing loans so I don't think the Portsmouth example is key. And whether the loans would have been called in or not, Portsmouth would've been bust very quickly without shareholder support regardless of the loans. The action of calling the loan may have triggered it (to be honest not sure if that is the case or not without checking but I'd guess HMRC really triggered the collapse) but it will always be a matter of time if the owners stop funding a club like Portsmouth.

And I would say they resisted including loans because it wasn't a meaningful advantage and helped with admin so nobody was particularly bothered Inc City. But when City needed the argument, they dusted it down and successfully ran it at the Tribunal.

Depends on the argument. It’s not relevant for the APT discussion and to whether loans are included or not for that as ultimately that would have made no difference to Portsmouth.

It’s an argument for the validity of PSR in the first place, at least in the context of the primary motivation being financial stability of the clubs. That ship has long since sailed though, like you say, no one is proposing outlawing of loans.

 

[KS55]

If the law was that easy, the PL wouldn't have got it wrong. And their "practising" lawyers would have told them to save their money and give in.

Maybe they did.

 

[slbsn]

The idea that a law professor knows less than a "practising" lawyer doesn't really stand up (in court or anywhere else).

I know one Supreme Court case where the judges thanked an academic for writing a helpful article in a learned journal summing up the various issues that the Court would have to decide.

Who do you think teaches all these lawyers who can't agree with each other? And the lawyers are all touting for business.

Depends on the issue. Understanding the ins and outs of a judicial reasoning maybe in a professor's sweet spot. Assessing the likely commercial impact of a number of findings of an APT hearing? Surely that is not a professor's sweet spot particularly where that professor is not able to give a definitive answer to the legal consequences of the findings. His view is premised on an assessment of how "minor" the commercial wins were in assessing FMV.