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

[I'm Blue]

You give one with one hand, and take two with the other hand. Ask the Red Cartel clubs. They’ve been doing that since the PL was started back in 1993.

We should just change it to ‘Arab rules’ then we all know where we stand.

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

Rolled back and slightly amended. expected as much. Now to see if City still think they are all unlawful or legal advice has been taken by the PL and the draft is accepted.

 

[slbsn]

It may be that Stefan knows the answer to this already, and if so I'd be interested.

The gist of the tribunal's decision was that the substance of the APT rules as initially introduced was, with the exception of the shareholder loans exclusion, more or less okay. What made the substance of the rules unlawful (I'm ignoring the procedural stuff) was not just the shareholder loans exclusion but also the 2024 amendments, which collectively had the effect of making it much easier for the PL to block an APT if in its judgment the transaction was above fair market value.

As I read the Mail article and Stefan's tweet, the suggested amendments to the APT rules seem to dispense with the shareholder loans exemption and the 2024 amendments.

Except for one.

The original rules said that the PL would not hold an APT to be other than at fair market value unless the amount payable under the agreement was "evidently" more than would be payable on an arms' length basis.

The removal of that qualification so that all that mattered was the PL's judgment that the amount payable under the APT was above FMV - not "evidently above", simply above - was part of the tribunal's overall reasoning in finding the regulations unlawful.

To put the same point another way, the removal of that qualification to the APT rules plainly had the effect of lowering the standard of what the PL had to prove to block an APT. That was part of an overall watering down of the hurdles the PL had to get over to show an APT was above fair market value which was an important part in the conclusion that the rules, taken together, were unlawful. The proposed new rules undo the reversal of the burden of proof which the 2024 amendments included, but they don't appear to reverse also this reduction to the standard of proof.

It may be that this is covered in the new proposals, but as I read them, although the PL has rowed back on all the other 2024 modifications (which were in large measure why the APT rules were found to be unlawful) they have not rowed back on this.

Had they simply unwound the 2024 amendments in full, I would be pretty sure that the reworked APT rules - if passed - would be lawful. The fact that they appear to have retained the lower standard of poof - making it easier for the PL to prove an APT is not at fair market value - makes me think that if passed, this new version of the rules might also be unlawful.

Whether the club would challenge this is not clear. What is clear is that it is easier for the PL, assuming the new proposed rules are adopted, for the PL to show an APT is above fair market value than it was when the original APT rules were introduced in 2021.

Assuming it's right that this part of the 2024 amendments survives (and it may be that it doesn't and that just hasn't been included within the summaries) it remains to be seen whether the new regulations now fall on the right side of being lawful.

There is an argument that, by retaining one of the features that made the APT rules unlawful, they won't.

I'd be staggered if the removal of "evidently" was not also rowed back. Think it is just an omission from the articles published in the Mail and Times (which clearly come from the same place).

 

[citizen_maine]

wtf are sportsmanship rules?

"sponsorship"

 

[Stoned Rose]

Does anyone think City have formed an alliance with some of the PL clubs on the QT, and formed a possible blocking vote of 7 clubs?

City aren’t going to try to block the rules for the sake of it or just to do the PL’s heads in.

They’ll only do that if the rules are unlawful or unreasonable (again).

If they are unlawful or unreasonable I’d expect the other clubs’ legal representatives will tell them to vote against.

 

[I'm Blue]

"sponsorship"

I really should put my reading glasses on hahaha ffs.

 

[manimanc]

I bet Luigi coming in from Sporting will still get a nice few hundred million welcoming present next summer.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Fuck off with your lies. We weren't successful and thats that.....

 

[citizen_maine]

City aren’t going to try to block the rules for the sake of it or just to do the PL’s heads in.

They’ll only do that if the rules are unlawful or unreasonable (again).

If they are unlawful or unreasonable I’d expect the other clubs’ legal representatives will tell them to vote against.

because we thought the APT rules were unreasonable

 

[Chris in London]

I'd be staggered if the removal of "evidently" was not also rowed back. Think it is just an omission from the articles published in the Mail and Times (which clearly come from the same place).

You are probably right - I checked on the PL's initial statement when the ruling came out and they referenced more than once the removal of "evidently" in the 2024 amendments as one of the points the tribunal had specifically commented on. It would be odd if they weren't now rolling that back as well.

Chances are, as you say, it's sloppy reporting/sloppy sourcework.

However...