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

seafordblue said:
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!
Click to expand...
RPT rules introduced from 2013 not APT, that was in 2021 or 2022 I can't remember which
 
So does anyone know what the new APT rules are ? or as I suspect the 14 clubs that voted in favour have only done so in their best interests and dont give a shit what the new rules are as long as it stops big bad city
 
Albeeeert said:
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.
Click to expand...
The tribunal agreed with City that shareholder loans weren't treated at fmv & gave clubs an unfair advantage, so if the PL can still veto the Abu Dhabi bank & Etihad uplift deals while at the same time not enforcing shareholder loans & mfv, it would make the tribunals findings (what we know of at the moment) meaningless
 
BerkshireBlue said:
RPT rules introduced from 2013 not APT, that was in 2021 or 2022 I can't remember which
Click to expand...
Not according to ChatGPT

Q. when were associated party transactions introduced as a rule in the Premier league

A. The Premier League introduced specific rules around related party transactions (often called associated party transactions) to improve financial transparency and ensure fair play in its 2013 Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. These rules were part of the Premier League's broader financial oversight framework, aimed at maintaining the league's integrity and preventing financial abuses.
 
seafordblue said:
Not according to ChatGPT

Q. when were associated party transactions introduced as a rule in the Premier league

A. The Premier League introduced specific rules around related party transactions (often called associated party transactions) to improve financial transparency and ensure fair play in its 2013 Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. These rules were part of the Premier League's broader financial oversight framework, aimed at maintaining the league's integrity and preventing financial abuses.
Click to expand...
Then you shouldn't be relying on ChatGPT as it' clearly wrong
 
Blueknows said:
So does anyone know what the new APT rules are ? or as I suspect the 14 clubs that voted in favour have only done so in their best interests and dont give a shit what the new rules are as long as it stops big bad city
Click to expand...

Not that I am sticking up for the clubs who have voted for the new rules, but whilst they may be happy that they may have an impact upon our progress, I suspect the prospect of the owner loans being factored into PSR is the bigger issue which is giving other teams serious worries.

Obviously double standards by way of treatment of us and Newcastle has not materially upset them.

But having been given a free pass by the PL has clearly made their financial operations easier, whilst the impact of the interest on those loans being brought into the equation may seriously fuck them up.

Hopefully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.