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

[Asa's left peg]

I have a cunning plan. Let's start all over again and have a clean slate for everyone and then make it about debt.

I'm surprised it hasn't been raised before!

 

[Dribble]

not seen this, is this confirmed anywhere? @slbsn ?

Cutting through the fog, City’s legal team have made their position quite clear. In its present guise, APT is unlawful in the main, therefore unenforceable, which renders it in effect null & void.

After the initial "we won" bluster from the PL, Masters withdrew from his golf day with the PL's broadcasting partners, & had to defer the PL's hastily called meeting for 12 days, whilst they reconsidered their initial claim that “a small number of discrete elements” of APT (which doesn’t comply with competition law), “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs”.

Simon Cliff has spoken, & judging by the PL's later position of them now “taking the necessary time” to decide how to respond to the verdict, I'd rather go with the considered view of the City lawyer who was in the room than ones who weren't.

APT in its present guise is unlawful, unfair & unreasonable, therefore unenforceable, so in effect it's legally null and void.

 

[rabby]

I have a cunning plan. Let's start all over again and have a clean slate for everyone and then make it about debt.

I'm surprised it hasn't been raised before!

Once we are cleared on all but compliance I wouldn't be surprised if this idea gets a airing,minus the debt part of course (the turkeys won't vote for Christmas).

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

Cutting through the fog, City’s legal team have made their position quite clear. In its present guise, APT is unlawful in the main, therefore unenforceable, which renders it in effect null & void.

After the initial "we won" bluster from the PL, Masters withdrew from his golf day with the PL's broadcasting partners, & further had to defer the PL's hastily called meeting for 12 days, whilst they reconsidered their initial claim that “a small number of discrete elements” of APT (which doesn’t comply with competition law), “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs”.

Simon Cliff has spoken, & judging by the PL's later position of them now “taking the necessary time” to decide how to respond to the verdict, I'd rather go with the considered view of the City lawyer who was in the room, than random opinion.

APT in its present guise is unlawful, unfair & unreasonable, therefore unenforceable, so in effect it's legally null and void.

Im aware of the that it was the rules 'being retroactively applied' i don't think will happen tbh. It may though just gut feeling

 

[Dribble]

Im aware of the that it was the rules 'being retroactively applied' i don't think will happen tbh. It may though just gut feeling

Hence why I said the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. If they apply shareholder loans retrospectively, they have to apply sanctions to those affected clubs retroactively, which will open a new can of worms.

If they scrap APT, I'd imagine clubs already affected by the unlawful rules, will have grounds for damages. It could get worse. If a relegated club argues their chances of PL safety were fatally damaged by their inability to strengthen their squad as needed because of APT, that's the other can of worms waiting for the PL.

City's legal team have been very clear with their view on the immediate future of APT. It's unlawful & unenforceable. It seems the PL have shot themselves in the foot...

 

[johnny crossan]

Draw a line in the sand, and apply the new rules/amendments Im expecting.

Our retained legals Messrs Pannick, Screwem & Jailem will be rubbing their hands if they get enough yank votes to attempt to go down that road.

 

[laserblue]

I believe that’s called getting off on a technicality……

You are Rob Harris and I claim my £115.

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

Our retained legals Messrs Pannick, Screwem & Jailem will be rubbing their hands if they get enough yank votes to attempt to go down that road.

Maybe, clubs voted to leave them out in the first instance, don't see anything happened retrospectively tbh. Rules will be amended, process updated and everyone moves on.

 

[slbsn]

Do you think shareholders loans for APT and shareholders loans for FFP/PSR are separate issues?

Simplistically, you would think if the treatment of shareholder loans makes the APT rules unlawful, then it makes the PSR rules unlawful too, if challenged. And if the rules have been applied unlawfully since inception, that is a big problem.

But, I suppose, there may be different arguments for the current PSR position compared to the current APT position.

The judgment seems pretty clear to me that if tested PSR is also unlawful per the shareholder loan point - so separate but deeply connected. But I think it will be fixed.

As it happens I think there is an error in para 258 on this point. It says the Tribunal have been asked whether the exclusion of shareholder loans from the PSR distorts competition. But then go on to answer for APT Rules. City submitted that the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules was an object restriction. And the Tribunal agreed but it did not conclude on PSR as far as I can see unless anyone can spot it.

 

[citizen_maine]

Maybe, clubs voted to leave them out in the first instance, don't see anything happened retrospectively tbh. Rules will be amended, process updated and everyone moves on.

That assumes everyone impacted by the inclusion of Shareholder loans is happy to include them