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

[hello]

There is no way they will apply market levels of interest for historic periods where they cause clubs to breach. That would be obviously unfair and, no doubt, full mitigation anyway

Didn't they add a whole bunch of rules about cooperation and then tried to say we breached those cooperation rules for seasons prior to their introduction, whilst it should be obvious new rules can't fairly be applied retrospectively we can never underestimate how far the pl will go to suck a shriveled yank cock.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Today's PL meeting:

City: Shareholder loans should be part of any new PSR rules.

Red Cartel: We're (insert history name here) we have a right to remain competitive!

Teams up Red Cartels arse: Agree with red shirt cunts.

Forest: Who the fuck do we sue you bent bastards?!

Newcastle: You pulled the pin out. City caught the grenade and they threw it back at you. Roll on January. *Smirks*

Arsenal: We've come up with new rules.

City: They just say fuck City.

Arsenal: Er....I don't know how that got in there.

Spurs: *Silent but constantly texting a journalist*

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That maybe so but hard to think it will be relitigated especially given it’s 2024

I don’t agree with that.

Don’t forget, the APT rules came in in two tranches, the initial 2021 rules and the 2024 amendments. Don’t forget also that because the new rules - the “advance approval” system rather than the retrospective analysis - plainly had the effect of distorting the market, the test was whether they were a proportionate response to a legitimate problem.

The question of whether it was a legitimate problem in the first place is one you and I may have our doubts about, but the tribunal have made their decision about that, and short of an appeal (which wouldn’t succeed) that’s that.

On the question of whether it was a proportionate response, apart from the question of shareholder loans the tribunal evidently thought the APT rules were pretty fair. The shareholder loans point was a simple one, as the best points usually are - how can it be fair for the rules to permit one form of owner subsidy but prohibit another - but the overall approach of the rules was to remove owner subsidy, but to retain a system of checks and balances to ensure that sponsorship agreements that were above the norm but were still commercially legitimate arrangements were not outlawed. In other words, to outlaw owner subsidy, not to outlaw good commercial deals that might be struck between parties with symbiotic objectives.

I think the tribunal’s judgment shows that, apart from the shareholder loans issue, the tribunal thought the 2021 rules were a proportionate, and therefore lawful, response to the problem the PL had identified.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the 2024 amendments really removed most of those checks and balances. They shifted the burden of proof to the club to show that the deal was fair market value. They shifted the standard of proof because the initial APT rules said that an APT transaction would not be blocked unless it was “evidently” above fair market value. The removal of the word “evidently” meant that the PL no longer had to show clear blue water between what had been agreed and what would otherwise be fair market value. They changed the wording of the rules from ‘could be justified’ to ‘would be justified’ essentially so that APTs get judged not on the basis that the relevant sponsors are sponsoring the champions of England/Europe/the world but instead on the basis that they are sponsoring an average PL team.

There are two quick fixes to this. One, simply ditch the 2024 amendments. All of them. Two, simply remove the shareholder loans exemption. These are not difficult changes to the rules.

The real problem for the PL is that what they wanted to do was make it harder for City and Newcastle to achieve their objectives while not not interfering with those clubs - no names, no pack drill - who rely on extensive interest free shareholder loans. And when they found the initial APT rules still weren’t making it hard enough, they wanted to make it harder.

They have been told in no uncertain terms that what they were doing was illegal. I suspect they are dead in the water as regards the 2024 amendments or anything like them. I suspect they are equally dead in the water in terms of excluding shareholder loans.

The problem, a I see it, is that the objectives of the PL clubs who were behind APT have not changed, and they are now struggling to come up with a lawful way of achieving those objectives.

Which I doubt they will be able to do.

I wasn't suggesting there was a legal basis to challenge them but we could have simply asked Herbert how the rules would have prevented Portsmouth's administration, or the very real possibility that we could have gone under in 2008.

Show our aggregated net loss over the appropriate three-year period (2006-2008) and that we were well within the PSR maximum allowable loss. The unadjusted aggregate net losses were £24.4m and accumulated depreciation was £8.4m. So even before deducting other allowable expenses (e.g. expenditure on youth development), we're only showing a loss of £16m over those three years.

If I remember rightly, it was mid-June 2008 when Ernst & Young were in & we were talking to David Bernstein about a plan to buy the club following the seemingly inevitable administration. Then ask him how these particular rules, whereby we would have easily passed PSR while simultaneously going into administration, could be seen as effective under those circumstances.

I suspect that he's have had to answer "They wouldn't", thereby completely undermining the whole credibility of his testimony.

I'm very nervous, as a non-expert, about preaching to an expert in courtroom procedure, but but if someone came out with a statement that, if proven to be false or substantially misleading would undermine the reliability of their testimony, and potentially their whole case, surely you'd take that opportunity to discredit them?

Herbert also talked about the PL having considered introducing APTs for a while, but there was no evidence of that until after the Newcastle takeover. Again, challenging his evidence on the reason for PSR, helps undermine his evidence in that. And didn't he also give the evidence about 'Gulf States' not really meaning 'Gulf States'?

Yet the tribunal found him a compelling witness. I doubt they'd have taken that view if we'd have shown early on he was talking shit.

 

[kaz7]

I want to hear what happened today , now ! I really hate secrets , lol

 

[Newman Noggs]

Today's PL meeting:

City: Shareholder loans should be part of any new PSR rules.

Red Cartel: We're (insert history name here) we have a right to remain competitive!

Teams up Red Cartels arse: Agree with red shirt cunts.

Forest: Who the fuck do we sue you bent bastards?!

Newcastle: You pulled the pin out. City caught the grenade and they threw it back at you. Roll on January. *Smirks*

Arsenal: We've come up with new rules.

City: They just say fuck City.

Arsenal: Er....I don't know how that got in there.

Spurs: *Silent but constantly texting a journalist*

IC Panel - "the rules may say "fuck City" but that doesn't mean they were in any way discriminatory"

 

[Vic]

...

Herbert also talked about the PL having considered introducing APTs for a while, but there was no evidence of that until after the Newcastle takeover. Again, challenging his evidence on the reason for PSR, helps undermine his evidence in that. And didn't he also give the evidence about 'Gulf States' not really meaning 'Gulf States'?

Yet the tribunal found him a compelling witness. I doubt they'd have taken that view if we'd have shown early on he was talking shit.

Not Herbert, was it? That was whoever sent the email just after the Newcastle takeover, whose testimony was basically "While I only mentioned Gulf States, I didn't mean only Gulf States".

 

[slbsn]

It's not historic periods though, it's this year's period, it's a rolling 3 year calculation and if they don't include the loans then they've broken the rules again and will be on the hook for another round of legal battles and compensation without a leg to stand on.

The periods T-2 and T-1 are closed historic accounts. Of course it is a 3 year calculation but incorporates periods where the clubs can’t change their approach. I don’t agree the right or lawful approach is to require adjustments that may trigger PSR failures and I don’t believe there is any chance it will happen.

 

[slbsn]

Didn't they add a whole bunch of rules about cooperation and then tried to say we breached those cooperation rules for seasons prior to their introduction, whilst it should be obvious new rules can't fairly be applied retrospectively we can never underestimate how far the pl will go to suck a shriveled yank cock.

No. We can only breach the relevant rule in the year of breach

 

[slbsn]

I wasn't suggesting there was a legal basis to challenge them but we could have simply asked Herbert how the rules would have prevented Portsmouth's administration, or the very real possibility that we could have gone under in 2008.

Show our aggregated net loss over the appropriate three-year period (2006-2008) and that we were well within the PSR maximum allowable loss. The unadjusted aggregate net losses were £24.4m and accumulated depreciation was £8.4m. So even before deducting other allowable expenses (e.g. expenditure on youth development), we're only showing a loss of £16m over those three years.

If I remember rightly, it was mid-June 2008 when Ernst & Young were in & we were talking to David Bernstein about a plan to buy the club following the seemingly inevitable administration. Then ask him how these particular rules, whereby we would have easily passed PSR while simultaneously going into administration, could be seen as effective under those circumstances.

I suspect that he's have had to answer "They wouldn't", thereby completely undermining the whole credibility of his testimony.

I'm very nervous, as a non-expert, about preaching to an expert in courtroom procedure, but but if someone came out with a statement that, if proven to be false or substantially misleading would undermine the reliability of their testimony, and potentially their whole case, surely you'd take that opportunity to discredit them?

Herbert also talked about the PL having considered introducing APTs for a while, but there was no evidence of that until after the Newcastle takeover. Again, challenging his evidence on the reason for PSR, helps undermine his evidence in that. And didn't he also give the evidence about 'Gulf States' not really meaning 'Gulf States'?

Yet the tribunal found him a compelling witness. I doubt they'd have taken that view if we'd have shown early on he was talking shit.

For whatever reason City chose not to challenge that evidence.

 

[flb]

Our stock has never been so high for good upto rate sponsorship deals , sponsorship deals that surpass what this league has seen before , the most watched side in America and beyond actually speaks volumes.

Spitty made me laugh on the podcast “how can City generate more revenue than Madrid , United and Liverpool”. They actually think 80% or our revenue is false , and that is what we are dealing with. I explained that 80% or our revenue is from the PL, Sky and other tv rights - oh and winning shit loads of fucking trophies - when you think that the entire Etihad deal of circa £70m a year only equates to roughly 15% of our revenue he didn’t know what to say.
They’re blinded by it , in other words they’re all as thick as fuck .