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

[Albeeeert]

I nor your mate has said anything about legal challenges but by all accounts they do appear to be in support of City in agreeing that they will not be voting in favour of any "new" rules.

They also gave evidence in support of City in the APT case.

 

[oakiecokie]

They also gave evidence in support of City in the APT case.

You appear to be back tracking now. ;)

 

[Silva2021]

So who do we think is on City side…

Aston Villa
Newcastle
Chelsea (?)
Forest (?)
Everton (?)
Leicester

Assume PL must think they will get it through, but our argument should hit 2 sets of clubs, those against the rule and those who must take a sensible view of we need to get it right.

We could find other clubs (not the obvious agreeing with us).

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m assuming City want the amended rules thrown out so we can get the Etihad deal through under the old rules?

The deals were assessed under the old (2021) rules. I imagine City want the rules null and void so Etihad doesn't get re-assessed.

 

[Albeeeert]

You appear to be back tracking now. ;)

Nope, I was talking about legally challenging PSR as being unlawfully anti-competitive as a whole in its current form rather than the APT case which didn't challenge PSR as a whole.

192. We agree that the move to an ex ante regime with a freeze on monies being used until there has been a determination that the APT is evidently not above FMV is a more intrusive market intervention than the previous ex post regime. However, as we have found, the evidence referred to at [180] above, indicates that there were difficulties in the speedy and effective investigation of potential breaches under the ex post regime. RPTs were not being declared, and any restatement would be made long after the money had been done. As a result, the PSR was not effective. There has been no challenge to the PSR or to the principle of detecting and eliminating subsidies by way of RPTs with the clubs.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Am I being too simplistic ? It doesn't matter who votes for what. If the amendments passed are contrary to UK law, it goes back to the panel or straight to court?

 

[Lord Blue]

Am I being too simplistic ? It doesn't matter who votes for what. If the amendments passed are contrary to UK law, it goes back to the panel or straight to court?

imo any panel/court would take a very dim view of the PL passing any dubious rules without waiting on the outcome of the current case

 

[dadnlad]

imo any panel/court would take a very dim view of the PL passing any dubious rules without waiting on the outcome of the current case

city should vote for it then lol

 

[Stoned Rose]

So who do we think is on City side…

Aston Villa
Newcastle
Chelsea (?)
Forest (?)
Everton (?)
Leicester

Assume PL must think they will get it through, but our argument should hit 2 sets of clubs, those against the rule and those who must take a sensible view of we need to get it right.

We could find other clubs (not the obvious agreeing with us).

It’s not about clubs “being on our side”.

Clubs are going to vote for what is in their best interests they don’t give a fuck about ours.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

It’s not about clubs “being on our side”.

Clubs are going to vote for what is in their best interests they don’t give a fuck about ours.

True.