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

[Centurions]

When was this issued ?

When the initial verdict was given.

https://www.mancity.com/meta/media/wzmfdwtn/partial-final-award-p-164-redacted.pdf

 

[Vic]

It doesn't matter what's in the changes.

The PL's position is that they can fix the APT rules by making a few changes.

The club's position is that the existing rules are null and void and a complete new set of rules needs approving.

Until that is settled by the tribunal this is going nowhere, I think.

City say the ruling that the rules are unlawful means they are void. The PL statement says they have amended the rules - but there were no rules to amend. These must be new rules.

Not backdating shareholder loans is, on the face of it, based on the worthy principle of avoiding retrospective legislation. But are the PL pretending that their past interfering with City's sponsorship deal is unaffected? That interference was under rules declared unlawful - so are the PL saying that they will not retrospectively bring shareholder deals into the Fair Market Value assessment but will retrospectively stick to assessing sponsorship deals? If so, my reading of the Tribunal's ruling is that the Tribunal may well say, "Are you taking the piss? All costs awarded to City." And if the "new" / "amended" rules are designed to try and retrospectively justify the PL's unlawful interference in the sponsorship deals, that is just going to enhance City's claim for damages, compounded by the PL's unreasonable behaviour.

The Tribunal could and should have been explicit about the impact of their "unlawful" ruling. Some including City think that it clearly means the rules were void (under the Competition Act) but the PL have lawyers who either don't think that's clear (or do but are vacillating).

The Tribunal's costs have just gone up too if they also now have to examine the new rules (which introduce stuff that wasn't in the original rules). If they think the PL has acted prematurely, and unreasonably, the PL could be caned for costs.

 

[I'm Blue]

When was this issued ?

When the verdict was announced.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I think the PL have tried to introduce these modifications in the hope that they can influence the IT. It can assure the IT that it has taken on board all the findings of the IT's initial award and the problem is now behind everyone. No point rocking the boat and no point causing financial embarrassment to some PL clubs.

They have addressed some issues raised by the IT and City but I don't think they will get away with it. Owner/shareholder loans have always been RPT, never mind APTs, and should always been subject to interest payments. It is hard to argue that clubs in receipt of such loans have not benefitted from an advantage compared to other clubs. It is hard to underestimate the advantage Chelsea derived from loans from Abramovitch totalling £1.5 billion, which have been written off! But the aim of the APT rules is to stop some clubs benefitting from such APTs while others cannot make such sponsorship deals. Chelsea's benefit, and other clubs', advantage is clear to see ...

So, today was not a defeat for City. The new rules have eliminated the most objectionable features of the old. The new rules are much closer to those of 2021 which were more palatable. And there may well be more to come.

 

[johnny crossan]

Is this an update today - or is it the 9 Oct post, which is now out of date? Confused as to why it’s been posted

9 Oct it was retweeted by MZ I think but could be wrong. The content is key.

 

[Random Precision]

Is it time for Etihad to sponsor Newcastle and the Saudi Tourism board to sponsor City yet?

You’d soon see a new rule introduced to prevent this………twats

 

[Albeeeert]

That wasn't why Leicester "got off". Leicester showed that they were not a PL club when the breaches took place and so had not and could not breach PL regulations.

From what I understand it was more than that, it was also found that it was procedurally unfair because it wasn't clear at what point the breach happened, that they could have had the opportunity to sell players to address the breach if they had known exactly when the breach occurred.

In the case of any clubs with shareholder loans, if applied retrospectively they could potentially argue that it is procedurally unfair because they did not have the opportunity at that time to address the breach and/or change the structure of the owner's investment.

The PL are in a bit of a catch 22. Not applying FMV to shareholder loans retrospectively is probably unlawful, but if they did apply FMV to shareholder loans retrospectively, that would possibly also be unlawful.

The PL are likely to argue that they couldn’t apply it retrospectively because it would not be lawful, but that is essentially arguing that two wrongs make a right.

I think the only solution is probably that the current PSR cycle is void and has to restart.

 

[seafordblue]

I’m sure this has been debated and dismissed but is it not possible that this is all part of City’s masterplan and is really a victory for City.

APT rules were introduced in 2013, the same time as the PSR rules and are intrinsic to the scrutiny for each club.

As we all know the APT rules have clearly been stated as unlawful and therefore since their introduction have given clubs using Shareholder loans an unfair advantage over others.

The only way to legalise the APT rules would have been to retrospectively apply interest to all shareholder loans. The 16 clubs have today voted to not make these rules lawful.

Next step, City declare APT rules are still unlawful. Therefore, as APT rules are part of PSR then PSR rules become unlawful.

The 115 case is about City being creative to meet the PSR rules, so as I’m no legal expert I’ve just asked ChatGPT.

‘If PSR rules were seen as unlawful because APT rules are unlawful, would ongoing cases involving PSR rules have to be dismissed’

Response

Scenario 1: APT Rules Are Struck Down, but PSR Stands

• Ongoing Cases Involving APT Revenue:
  • Cases where clubs are penalized for breaching PSR due to rejected or adjusted income from related-party transactions (APT issues) might need to be revisited or dismissed.
  • The absence of lawful APT rules means regulators cannot challenge those income sources, making it harder to prove PSR violations.

Scenario 2: APT Rules Are Integral, and PSR Is Deemed Unlawful

• If PSR rules are deemed unlawful because of their dependence on now-invalid APT rules, all ongoing PSR cases could face dismissal. This outcome would arise because:
  • The legal foundation of the regulation is invalid.
  • Applying an unlawful rule would violate procedural fairness.
• Past penalties under PSR could also be challenged, potentially leading to compensation or reversals.

Conclusion

If PSR rules were deemed unlawful due to their reliance on APT rules, ongoing cases involving PSR could be dismissed, particularly if they hinge on revenue adjustments linked to APT. However, cases unrelated to APT issues might still proceed, depending on the specific grounds for PSR’s invalidity. The situation would likely trigger significant regulatory reforms and legal challenges across football governance.



Bingo!

 

[jonmcity]

Oh well, back to court we go.

 

[Blueknows]

As others have said where was all this bollocks when the rags and scousers were dominating english football