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

[Chris in London]

"Leading counsel" might be understood as meaning better than City’s. How often do "leading counsel" lose a civil case? 50%?

You mean the PL’s leading counsel , who lost, is better than City’s leading counsel, who won?

 

[cheekybids]

If I were to summarise, I think the PL now think they are finished with this. Certain parts of the rules were unlawful, but the rest, they say, continued in place. The new rules correct the unlawful parts and so they think they can now re-assess the Etihad deal under the adjusted rule set which, as the unlawful parts didn't affect the original assessments particularly, they can come to the same conclusion that it is still overvalued. This assumes the PL's position on the old rules is confirmed by the tribunal.

Assuming that City started this whole rigmarole to get the Etihad deal through, then I think City are confident in their legal position that the rules are still null and void. In this case the Etihad deal sails through unchecked and the recently approved rules become null and void, and a whole new ruleset will have to be approved later. As a result, the club will, in the words of the great bard, have won "the greatest victory since the Winchester flower arranging team beat Harrow by 12 sore bottoms to 1!".

But why did the correspondence between the two parties get so vitriolic for a vote that is actually pretty irrelevant as I doubt it changes the tribunal's forthcoming judgment at all.

There is still a nagging question in the back of my mind about whether City may have bigger fish to fry. If they are successful in voiding the APT rules for the treatment of shareholder loans, then maybe they can challenge the lawfulness of FFP/PSR for the same reason (this could be the reason why the club seemed to have accepted, or at least didn't oppose strongly, that the APT rules were a vital part of FFP - something that always surprised me). And if FFP/PSR is null and void since inception it gives the PL an enormous headache for many reasons. Not the least of which is that FFP wouldn't have existed through 2018, and the 115 allegations would fall apart. For those saying they would still be serious allegations, consider this: without FFP, there would be no sporting advantage to the club even if all the 115 allegations were proven. They would only be administrative breaches and breaches of good faith and so would only be subject to a fine.

That would explain the aggression shown by each of the two sides, trying to protect their positions in the bigger picture.

I am reasonably sure paragraphs one and two are pretty accurate but the rest is purely speculative, of course. Please shoot it down if you think it's complete bollocks. I have no problem being told I am talking bollocks, which is just as well. It happens a lot :)

If that happens other clubs would be entitled to sue for damages. Clubs who had points deducted. Clubs who had to sell players to survive & clubs who were relegated.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If that happens other clubs would be entitled to sue for damages. Clubs who had points deducted. Clubs who had to sell players to survive & clubs who were relegated.

Those are some of the other headaches. But who cares? That's their problem. I just get the feeling there is more going on here than interest on shareholder loans.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

My opinion in short. Individuals who run the Premier League organization from behind the scenes want to make Man City fail. They are using that organization to employ illegal means by which to constrain Man City and their owners. Then they sell those illegal means as a "smart, good and English" policy to the rest of the Premier League clubs. It is basically an ethnic, English-based cartel type a thing. And they commonly invoke racist overtones. People can think what they want about foreign ownership and foreign owners but those things are not illegal.

Given that vote it seems to be that Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest are the only clubs in the league satisfying these two conditions:

1. Want things to work in accordance to law and don't want illegal means to be used.

2. Their representatives at the Premier League level are actually representing their club's interests.

3. Their representatives at the Premier League level have guts to represent their club's interests.

So that the issue now becomes who makes the actual votes at the Premier League level on behalf of individual clubs. How is that institution organized?* Are there discussions?* Who is present?* How does voting take place?* How is information distributed?* Who controls the public relations or media for that organization?* Is it just an individual or is there an office/administration?*

* All of these are very, very important when it comes to things like corruption. Parliament is an institution with its own very visible and very precisely and clearly designed set of rules and procedures. And people are STILL greatly dissatisfied with how Parliament works. So that you can imagine just hoooooow corrupt an organization like this is and can be.

Spot-on. People always seem surprised when corruption is exposed for all to see. But in this country proven corruption has happened in the justice system, all churches and relgious organisations, the health service, the financial sector, the education system, all elements of political life, central and local government, the police, broadcasters, even the Post Office. Why is it so difficult for some to see the corruption in plain sight which has happened at the top of our football authorities? How else would you describe the relationship between certain individuals at the top of the PL and the EFL and a small group of Club Directors which has actively operated against the interests of some other member clubs?

 

[slbsn]

Nielsen do, and the tribunal found that they are qualified to make those decisions:

433. The evidence revealed that Nielsen has a very high profile in the field of football club sponsorship deals. Indeed, MCFC has itself instructed Nielsen to provide advice on valuation. It must also have been known to the clubs that Nielsen had a confidential proprietary database. The evidence revealed that it is called SponsorGlobe and that clubs may, by the payment of a fee, obtain access to SponsorGlobe, as MCFC apparently did.

437. We are persuaded that the system as a whole is fair. In particular the club will have received a copy of Nielsen’s report with the Board’s Provisional Determination and have had an opportunity to comment on it. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is not unfair that a club is deprived of access to, and therefore the ability to comment upon, the detail of the transactions assessed by Nielsen to be relevant and comparable.

Neilsen don't decide. They are the provider of one piece of important information but they don't make the determination. The PL reg team creates a report including the Neilsen report, the club's submissions, databank information etc and makes a recommendation to the PL Board who then decide.

 

[give it to gordon]

And yesterday's vote by 20 club reps took 32? minutes lol

I was very surprised when I saw on my news app that the vote had been carried out. I thought than that was quick, did the meeting start at 5am ?? I'm sure the news was out about 9ish

 

[sir baconface]

If I were to summarise, I think the PL now think they are finished with this. Certain parts of the rules were unlawful, but the rest, they say, continued in place. The new rules correct the unlawful parts and so they think they can now re-assess the Etihad deal under the adjusted rule set which, as the unlawful parts didn't affect the original assessments particularly, they can come to the same conclusion that it is still overvalued. This assumes the PL's position on the old rules is confirmed by the tribunal.

Assuming that City started this whole rigmarole to get the Etihad deal through, then I think City are confident in their legal position that the rules are still null and void. In this case the Etihad deal sails through unchecked and the recently approved rules become null and void, and a whole new ruleset will have to be approved later. As a result, the club will, in the words of the great bard, have won "the greatest victory since the Winchester flower arranging team beat Harrow by 12 sore bottoms to 1!".

But why did the correspondence between the two parties get so vitriolic for a vote that is actually pretty irrelevant as I doubt it changes the tribunal's forthcoming judgment at all.

There is still a nagging question in the back of my mind about whether City may have bigger fish to fry. If they are successful in voiding the APT rules for the treatment of shareholder loans, then maybe they can challenge the lawfulness of FFP/PSR for the same reason (this could be the reason why the club seemed to have accepted, or at least didn't oppose strongly, that the APT rules were a vital part of FFP - something that always surprised me). And if FFP/PSR is null and void since inception it gives the PL an enormous headache for many reasons. Not the least of which is that FFP wouldn't have existed through 2018, and the 115 allegations would fall apart. For those saying they would still be serious allegations, consider this: without FFP, there would be no sporting advantage to the club even if all the 115 allegations were proven. They would only be administrative breaches and breaches of good faith and so would only be subject to a fine.

That would explain the aggression shown by each of the two sides, trying to protect their positions in the bigger picture.

I am reasonably sure paragraphs one and two are pretty accurate but the rest is purely speculative, of course. Please shoot it down if you think it's complete bollocks. I have no problem being told I am talking bollocks, which is just as well. It happens a lot :)

I think that’s a great analysis, mate. City must surely have spotted some potential for this to knock on favourably into the 115 case.

 

[Paladin]

It's City's case. We asked the tribunal to judge the rules unlawful. They did. It's usually open to judges to deal with "what if" questions but by and large they will rule only on what they're asked to do.

I think the tribunal left final judgment to see if the parties could agree on lawful rules. I won a small claims case, but I'd had some "betterment" and the judge then asked if I'd made an offer to settle before going into court and then asked the other party if that offer would be acceptable, their solicitor said yes and I just said "plus costs".

If one of the parties has compounded their defeat in court by forcing through new unlawful rules then costs and potential damages awarded to City will be higher than if mutual agreement had been reached.

Regards the emboldened sentence above, didn't the judges in the Everton case determine that Everton had not acted in good faith, only for the appeal judges to overturn this section of the original judgement because the "acting in good faith" charge had not been brought against Everton? In other words, the PL's panel of judges decided on something outside of their remit.

 

[Grassland Blue]

City are in this to win and I believe, as I always have, that they/we will.
Here's a question.
Do you believe that Arab involvement in football is a good thing for competition or not?
If you look at horse racing for example, Arab owned horses have definitely raised the competition level in that sport - the sport of Kings.

 

[sir baconface]

I was very surprised when I saw on my news app that the vote had been carried out. I thought than that was quick, did the meeting start at 5am ?? I'm sure the news was out about 9ish

Me too but, on reflection, they knew the vote was going to be passed and will have drafted a Press statement well before the meeting,