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

citizen_maine said:
Related Party Transactions (RPT) rules were part of FFP rules in 2013.
Associated Party Transactions (APT) were brought in in 2021
The difference is in the definition of APT v RPT
City and Etihad are not deemed to be an RPT, but are deemed to be an APT
This means any sponsorship from them now needs to go through a fair market value (FMV) test

Edit: I wouldn't currently put my faith in any AI engine
Click to expand...
Maybe master's is using one of these shite ai engine's to draft these amendments and the self serving Muppets are lapping it up as it's what they want to hear.
 
Last edited:
Sam Wallace's article is fairly typical of much of the media literature on the PL vote this morning. City's "defeat" was "chastening". City's case was roundly rejected by a coalition of clubs representing clubs from the richest to the poorest, those benefitting from owner loans and those which don't. This coalition was opposed by only four clubs and the dark claim is that these four "did so for reasons that are not yet explicit but might be guessed at." Wallace's powerful mind is not troubled by speculation as to why clubs such as Chelsea, Wolves, Arsenal and liverpool et al voted with the PL and thought THEIR reasons are not yet explicit WE can certainly guess at them.

But enough of this. Wallace needs to learn and remember a basic principle of British life and democracy - the law exists to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. A majority vote of PL shareholders, even a unanimous vote, has no moral value. Only the law decides what is right and wrong.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Sam Wallace's article is fairly typical of much of the media literature on the PL vote this morning. City's "defeat" was "chastening". City's case was roundly rejected by a coalition of clubs representing clubs from the richest to the poorest, those benefitting from owner loans and those which don't. This coalition was opposed by only four clubs and the dark claim is that these four "did so for reasons that are not yet explicit but might be guessed at." Wallace's powerful mind is not troubled by speculation as to why clubs such as Chelsea, Wolves, Arsenal and liverpool et al voted with the PL and thought THEIR reasons are not yet explicit WE can certainly guess at them.

But enough of this. Wallace needs to learn and remember a basic principle of British life and democracy - the law exists to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. A majority vote of PL shareholders, even a unanimous vote, has no moral value. Only the law decides what is right and wrong.
Click to expand...
What defeat? We actually got them to amend their illegal rules, Wallace is a dick (I hope you’re reading this you bellend) if he thinks other clubs are doing it for the good of the league he’s a prick, everyone is voting for themselves, if 16 thinks it benefits them then that’s why they vote for it. I hope the tribunal comes back and rules these are bollocks as well.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I get this going back to court argument.

My understanding and apologies I have not spent long on this, is todays vote has gone through and that could be ok depending on the tribunal findings.

We will surely keep our powder dry, possibly a holding letter but nothing more.

I would assume if the tribunal’s clarity allows this, then PL clubs are ok and we live with it.

If tribunal finds these new rules are not, then the PL will need to change them again and see if they can get a vote through (you would hope questions would be asked as to why they didn’t wait).

The court option only comes if the tribunal rules these new rules are not lawful and PL keep them or change them in a way we don’t feel meets the criteria.

All we have learned today is if they are lawful they will be implemented.

Am I correct or miles off??
 
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.