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

[slbsn]

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...

It is arguably the key point given it was specifically recognised in the original KC advice so I think very little chance it is not coming back. NB: all of City's APT applications were under the old rules so always needed them to be "evidently in excess of FMV"

 

[Chris in London]

It is arguably the key point given it was specifically recognised in the original KC advice so I think very little chance it is not coming back. NB: all of City's APT applications were under the old rules so always needed them to be "evidently in excess of FMV"View attachment 137534

Good point.

I looked at the tribunal's decision as effectively being "the reason the APT rules were a proportionate measure was that there were a series of safeguards in the original version that ensured it was only obviously abusive transactions that were affected. The removal of those safeguards renders the scheme unlawful."

I get your point it would be illogical for the PL to now try to keep the reduced standard when ditching the other 2024 amendments, but just supposing they did: if they chose to retain one of the features that made the APT rules unlawful but not the others, how would a future tribunal view that?

It's an interesting question...

...and it saves me from having to think about why we're all doomed when Amorim arrives.

 

[Keeper!]

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

After last night we will need a billion ;)

 

[slbsn]

Good point.

I looked at the tribunal's decision as effectively being "the reason the APT rules were a proportionate measure was that there were a series of safeguards in the original version that ensured it was only obviously abusive transactions that were affected. The removal of those safeguards renders the scheme unlawful."

I get your point it would be illogical for the PL to now try to keep the reduced standard when ditching the other 2024 amendments, but just supposing they did: if they chose to retain one of the features that made the APT rules unlawful but not the others, how would a future tribunal view that?

It's an interesting question...

...and it saves me from having to think about why we're all doomed when Amorim arrives.

I think City would go back to the Tribunal. I think it is a key point that it will come back

 

[CC1]

It is arguably the key point given it was specifically recognised in the original KC advice so I think very little chance it is not coming back. NB: all of City's APT applications were under the old rules so always needed them to be "evidently in excess of FMV"View attachment 137534

Is it basically good news for us???

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

Oooo. See we were successful after all :-)

At least that’s one win this week. Get those lawyer men and women drafted into midfield

 

[jrb]

At least that’s one win this week. Get those lawyer men and women drafted into midfield

“Can we talk about Pannick, he won the APT,”

 

[slbsn]

Is it basically good news for us???

In some ways, given we are about to sell/have already sold the next 10 years of rights to Etihad on the basis of the old rule anyway, it is less relevant to City than many others.

 

[CC1]

In some ways, given we are about to sell/have already sold the next 10 years of rights to Etihad on the basis of the old rule anyway, it is less relevant to City than many others.

Thanks.

 

[WRicko]

How has the Daily Fail got hold of the 14 page document?

A 14-page document outlining proposed changes and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting at the swanky Nobu Hotel in Portman Square.

The inclusion of shareholder loans – monies lent to clubs from those with stakes in them – is one of three changes being proposed across the 14 pages.

Instead, that exclusion has now been removed, although equity injection investments remain exempt. The other two focus on access to a databank of commercial deals used by the Premier League to reach a verdict on whether a proposed sponsorship is at fair market value (FMV) and the reversal of a number of changes brought in earlier this year.

The definition of FMV has been changed from whether the amount ‘could’ be sold rather than ‘would’ be sold between willing parties. The words ‘in normal market conditions’ have been removed, along with three lengthy paragraphs outlining its definition by the Premier League. There is an argument that in exceptional circumstances companies linked to countries in the midst of huge drives for exposure, such as Saudi Arabia, would be willing to pay a premium.

One issue the competition may face is a reluctance from those who benefit from shareholder loans to vote for the changes. And clarity may need to be sought from the tribunal panel on whether the amendments satisfy their requirements.

Premier League summons clubs for crunch meeting regarding APT rules

MIKE KEEGAN: A 14-page document outlining proposed amendments and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Is it me or is would a stricter meaning than could