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

[hello]

Does he have a profession?

Spit in a red spit roast probably with tiny todgers so lack of line wouldn’t have hurt too much

 

[hello]

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

There was, the pl counsel said evidently was illegal and faced challenges, arsenals counsel said never mind, the pl went ahead and fuck me sideways it’s unlawful

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t disagree with Stefan at all nor with Petruska. We have been discussing some of the minor aspects of the more minor points. A bit like debating Micah Richard’s non penalty in the context of the 6-1.

I can’t actually remember if I agree with HCU or not!

This @halfcenturyup guy isn't a legal professional anyway. I wouldn't listen to a word he says on legal issues, he only picks up what he knows from those other guys. What a fraud.

 

[halfcenturyup]

There was, the pl counsel said evidently was illegal and faced challenges, arsenals counsel said never mind, the pl went ahead and fuck me sideways it’s unlawful

The whole APT ruleset was on shaky ground at the outset. The legal advice in 2021 was apparently that "the recommendations for the treatment of RPTs has at least a good chance of resisting a sustained legal challenge". Now, that may be legalese for "It's all OK", but it hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. More of a wringing endorsement.

 

[Newman Noggs]

It seems to me the likelihood is that Mr Herbert was telling the truth when he said that there had been concern for some time about how to stop another Portsmouth, but the error seems to me to be to assume that this was the motivation (at least in part) for the APT rules. The tribunal accepted that the NUFC takeover was what they described as the “catalyst” for the new rules, but I struggle to see why they did not go further than that. I, personally, cannot see how it can reasonably be said that the NUFC takeover simply brought the Portsmouth concern, if I can call it that, to a head, when that fiasco occurred over a decade earlier and the remedy the PL alighted upon would not have prevented the Portsmouth concern in the first place.

Frankly, if the panel of esteemed legal experts really were credulous enough to believe Herbert's evidence, it's easy to see why the PL were so anxious to re-run the case thrown out by CAS in front of its own IC whilst adding in extra charges for good measure.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

PL PR team doing damage limitation more like

 

[halfcenturyup]

Frankly, if the panel of esteemed legal experts really were credulous enough to believe Herbert's evidence, it's easy to see why the PL were so anxious to re-run the case thrown out by CAS in front of its own IC whilst adding in extra charges for good measure.

I can't help shaking the idea that it suited all parties tactically to just accept Herbert's evidence on that issue without any real discussion. The PL because it wasn't a particularly strong argument, the club because it didn't want to justify its historical sponsorship deals for RP nature and FMV as a claimant with the burden of proof on them (and because they "knew" they had won the unlawful argument on shareholder loans anyway) and the tribunal because it didn't want to tread on the toes of the 115 panel.

Would explain why everyone seems to have tip-toed around the subject.

As always, may all be bollocks, but makes sense to me and I think it "stands at least a good chance of resisting a sustained legal challenge".

 

[Newman Noggs]

I can't help shaking the idea that it suited all parties tactically to just accept Herbert's evidence on that issue without any real discussion. The PL because it wasn't a particularly strong argument, the club because it didn't want to justify its historical sponsorship deals for RP nature and FMV as a claimant with the burden of proof on them (and because they "knew" they had won the unlawful argument on shareholder loans anyway) and the tribunal because it didn't want to tread on the toes of the 115 panel.

Would explain why everyone seems to have tip-toed around the subject.

As always, may all be bollocks, but makes sense to me and I think it "stands at least a good chance of resisting a sustained legal challenge".

I hope that's true and that the other respected posters who have proposed that interpretation are correct. I'm more inclined to the view that people, even lawyers, given the chance, will believe what they want to believe.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I hope that's true and that the other respected posters who have proposed that interpretation are correct. I'm more inclined to the view that people, even lawyers, given the chance, will believe what they want to believe.

Not accountants, though :)

I totally get the point that it's easy to rationalise after the event, rather than predict before. It's a pet hate.

But, in this case, if it was so easy to pick holes in Herbert's evidence that even I can see it, then the only options are that City's counsel didn't think of it (which means they are incredibly stupid) or that it is tactical (which means they are incredibly clever).

I know which I think is more likely :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Not accountants, though :)

I totally get the point that it's easy to rationalise after the event, rather than predict before. It's a pet hate.

But, in this case, if it was so easy to pick holes in Herbert's evidence that even I can see it, then the only options are that City's counsel didn't think of it (which means they are incredibly stupid) or that it is tactical (which means they are incredibly clever).

I know which I think is more likely :)

I still can't believe that the panel blithely accepted that argument, particularly as the email was sent just days after the Newcastle takeover. My assumption is that they had no idea of the history behind our takeover and the attitude of the media and the US-owned clubs to our owner.

But maybe it was because it was so close to the Newcastle takeover, that they assumed Gulf states were at the forefront of everyone's mind at that point.

The partial final verdict isn't a verbatim record of the proceedings so we don't know what the arguments were really.