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

halfcenturyup said:
It obviously looked like a duck, but Herbert and his witnesses said that it didn't quack and, it seems, nobody from City's counsel said it was quacking like hell. Which makes me think there was benefit for the club to take that approach somewhere.

As always, we need to be patient and see how everything plays out in both these cases, I think, before we jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...
The allegation would’ve been racism, perhaps we decided that pursuing that would be too destructive for Premier League when found guilty
 
slbsn said:
I don't agree with these domesday (from the PL's perspective) scenarios. Suspect the actual amendments will ULTIMATELY be relatively straightforward. Remember shareholder loans is a PSR and an APT issue but I think it is unlikely it makes all PSR null and void or that it requires retrospective application of shareholder loans. That said, nobody knows - not the clubs, not City, not the PL. There is no simple answer to these sort of questions.
Click to expand...

I agree with this regarding the position going forward. I think the amendments required to the rules to make them compliant are relatively straightforward and not particularly dramatic (although possibly still a win in City's eyes). Of course, the PL will also have to pass a vote with new drafting in and that may not be straightforward depending on how the various interest groups among the PL clubs shake out.

The historic position is however much more complicated. The problem is that without the inclusion of shareholder loans as APTs, the rules are unlawful. And it seems likely that several clubs may have failed PSR if they had been included (or even if not failed, had less headroom and been able to spend less). You might say that if they'd known this those clubs would've restructured their shareholder loans. Maybe- probably, even - but it's not certain.

So this means you have a situation where some clubs have been punished under unlawful rules when their competitors (who may have breached equally or even more severely if the rules had been lawful). I do see that as a really difficult problem for the PL to resolve.
 
slbsn said:
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.




View attachment 135831
Click to expand...

Seems like a mistake in wording. I guess. Can happen. There are plenty of spelling mistakes too.

On the unlawfulness of APT, though. It's your view that the unlawfulness can be corrected easily going forward, but that damages can be awarded to any losses incurred as a result of the application of unlawful rules?

If we have the same situation for PSR because of shareholder loans, which seems likely if there is a challenge, surely that is opening up an enormous can of worms? I am beginning to see why Masters cancelled his golf event now.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
rags are exempt under the soon-to-be-extinct protected species legislation
Click to expand...
Well let's hope so, many of the on field and off fiald rules are there to be used to be observed to the letter by City but seldomly used against those who wrote them.
Almost as though they are not rules but journalistic opinions giving opposing views of news items so they can always be right.
Thank heaven's the UK Legal process is expected to be followed.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
that's exactly what City went for reading the judgment. They wanted shareholder loans classed as RPT's and I think they've got that reading between the lines. Which possibly makes the whole PSR rules unlawful as well
Click to expand...
Since their inception?
 
Braggster said:
I agree with this regarding the position going forward. I think the amendments required to the rules to make them compliant are relatively straightforward and not particularly dramatic (although possibly still a win in City's eyes). Of course, the PL will also have to pass a vote with new drafting in and that may not be straightforward depending on how the various interest groups among the PL clubs shake out.

The historic position is however much more complicated. The problem is that without the inclusion of shareholder loans as APTs, the rules are unlawful. And it seems likely that several clubs may have failed PSR if they had been included (or even if not failed, had less headroom and been able to spend less). You might say that if they'd known this those clubs would've restructured their shareholder loans. Maybe- probably, even - but it's not certain.

So this means you have a situation where some clubs have been punished under unlawful rules when their competitors (who may have breached equally or even more severely if the rules had been lawful). I do see that as a really difficult problem for the PL to resolve.
Click to expand...
I think the PL's position going forward is just as complicated as their unlawful past. Their new Squad Cost & Anchoring Rules still need to incorporate the value of shareholder loans + tax which is simply kryptonite for the cartel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.