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

[blueste41]

But are the amendments legal?

Only a court can rule on the legality, until (and if) they are brought before a court they are untested and therefore deemed legal.

 

[Vic]

So what's it likely to cost us (before going to appeal)?

What is "it"? What appeal?

 

[Bodicoteblue]

At this particular approaching season of goodwill, we should remind ourselves of the old adage about turkeys not voting for Christmas.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I see the Premier League want to pay City some more money.
Bring it on.
There is no way in a billion years that any court will allow existing shareholder loans to be ruled out of scope without rulling out ANY sponsorships from existing sponsors.
They have deferred implementation till after a tribuneral rulling so it's a just a pissing contest by them till then.
It could still cost them more money mind.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Sorry for pissing on the chips of any lurking journo's, but today's vote was absolutely fucking meaningless.

Without clarification from the tribunal today's vote was little more than a pissing contest. And the PL might still end up with piss all over their shoes yet.

 

[cheekybids]

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.

& if City do proceed with further legal action with they have statements from Clubs who voted in favour (Everton) after the premier league lobbied them with a deal of no retrospective action.

 

[blueste41]

for me, no they're not. They still include the benefit of the shareholder loans in the PSR calculations for the previous two seasons which is unfair for clubs without shareholder loans. Something frowned upon in competition law

Shareholder loans cannot be used to get a club over the PSR line. Although if they were it wouldn't be unfair on clubs without them unless they were prevented from obtaining a shareholder loan. Your saying the equivalent that it's unfair we paid 100 million for Grealish because Ipswich couldn't afford to buy a player for 100 million.

 

[meltonblue]

Sorry for pissing on the chips of any lurking journo's, but today's vote was absolutely fucking meaningless.

Without clarification from the tribunal today's vote was little more than a pissing contest. And the PL might still end up with piss all over their shoes yet.

And even more piss having done what they’ve done today rather than waiting for the tribunals decision!

 

[jrb]

Why has the **** got a rag hashtag in his tweet?

Because as you say, Wallace is a c*nt. And a snidey, little, f*cker as well. Aren’t you Wallace!

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Shareholder loans cannot be used to get a club over the PSR line. Although if they were it wouldn't be unfair on clubs without them unless they were prevented from obtaining a shareholder loan. Your saying the equivalent that it's unfair we paid 100 million for Grealish because Ipswich couldn't afford to buy a player for 100 million.

The IC have said it's unfair and unlawful if shareholder loans aren't included in the calculations. That is still the case with this new rules. I have no idea what you're going on about tranfers for