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

[Blue_Lightsaber]

The Red Cartel and PL are making the Heath Ledger's Joker look like the smartest person on the planet:

 

[johnny crossan]

How so?

Sorry missed your question yesterday Stefan. I presumed that in the later post your prediction that City may initiate further successful legal proceedings against the carteliers* in the circumstances you describe would indeed have the 'ultimate impact' discounted in the previous one. It would be total PL meltdown! (*neologism - see next edition of the OED - you saw it first on here ;-))

 

[slbsn]

Sorry missed your question yesterday Stefan. I presumed that in the later post your prediction that City may initiate further successful legal proceedings against the carteliers* in the circumstances you describe would indeed have the 'ultimate impact' discounted in the previous one. It would be total PL meltdown! (*neologism - see next edition of the OED - you saw it first on here ;-))
View attachment 138839

Perhaps I have not been clear enough. My best guess is that the current drafting is now lawful and that the Tribunal further determinations will not materially change the picture. I think good practice would have been to wait for the Tribunal as City suggested but they chose a different route.

But if the Tribunal effectively determines matters that make the new rules immediately unlawful, the Premier League would surely not be so foolish to resist further changes/amendments. If it did, it is clear City would take legal action to enforce the Tribunal decision. But I think that scenario is very unlikely.

On the flip side, if the Tribunal determines that APT is null and void and needs to be completely redrafted, the redrafted rules would presumably look very similar to the 2021 rules plus the shareholder loan, databank and timing stuff ie what we now have. So net net no difference.

The one area that could be trickier to deal with is the shareholder loans in retrospect if the Tribunal says that you can't simply make it forward looking. But I think that any club in breach because of that (say an inadvertent breach of 23/24 PSR) would get full mitigation if charged given they had no reason to believe it was unlawful. So again, no ultimate impact.

 

[johnny crossan]

Perhaps I have not been clear enough. My best guess is that the current drafting is now lawful and that the Tribunal further determinations will not materially change the picture. I think good practice would have been to wait for the Tribunal as City suggested but they chose a different route.

But if the Tribunal effectively determines matters that make the new rules immediately unlawful, the Premier League would surely not be so foolish to resist further changes/amendments. If it did, it is clear City would take legal action to enforce the Tribunal decision. But I think that scenario is very unlikely.

On the flip side, if the Tribunal determines that APT is null and void and needs to be completely redrafted, the redrafted rules would presumably look very similar to the 2021 rules plus the shareholder loan, databank and timing stuff ie what we now have. So net net no difference.

The one area that could be trickier to deal with is the shareholder loans in retrospect. But I think that any club in breach because of that would get full mitigation if charged given they had no reason to believe it was unlawful. So again, no ultimate impact.

There seems to me a very significant difference between your take on the Tribunal 'null & void' ruling and that of the City legal team's public views. If the latter prevails the impact of historic shareholder loan fold into PSR targets may be excused but an impact on the validity of our alleged breaches of those rules counted among the 115 charges surely follows. How many of them directly involve PSR or indeed have any meaningful context if those rules didn't lawfully exist at all ?

• 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18.

• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.

• 5x Failure to comply with Uefa's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18.

• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.

• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.

 

[slbsn]

There seems to me a very significant difference between your take on the Tribunal 'null & void' ruling and that of the City legal team's public views. If the latter prevails the impact of historic shareholder loan fold into PSR targets may be excused but an impact on the validity of our alleged breaches of those rules counted among the 115 charges surely follows. How many of them directly involve PSR or indeed have any meaningful context if those rules didn't lawfully exist at all ?

• 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18.

• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.

• 5x Failure to comply with Uefa's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18.

• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.

• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.

That is correct but likewise it appears the lawyers of at least the Premier League and a number of teams share my take on "null and void". But as I say, even if they are, I am pretty sure the replacement rules will simply replicate the rules now which appear to have removed the offending points.

As for interaction with 115 - nil. Unlawful APT plays no part and offers no defence to any of the allegations made vs City. Zero. If they did a) City wouldn't have waited to Feb 2024 b) they would have made them part of the defence (potentially by way of a counter claim). You can't defend the allegation of false accounting (concealed and deliberate) in 2010 (say) with the argument that 10 years later the PL brought in rules with elements that made them unlawful. It is a nonsense argument and one City won't run.

I should add you are more than welcome to simply take City’s view as your view. I’m attempting to give a more objective overview including from the initial Tribunal which upset you and others but I’d say looks ok as the situation develops. Certainly, there is little sign it was a monumental victory.

 

[journolud]

The one area that could be trickier to deal with is the shareholder loans in retrospect if the Tribunal says that you can't simply make it forward looking. But I think that any club in breach because of that (say an inadvertent breach of 23/24 PSR) would get full mitigation if charged given they had no reason to believe it was unlawful. So again, no ultimate impact.

Wouldn’t the ultimate impact be that clubs would have to amend their own financial projections and plans going forward and either not be able to spend what they had planned to or be forced to sell players to accommodate the revised interest payments?

 

[johnny crossan]

That is correct but likewise it appears the lawyers of at least the Premier League and a number of teams share my take on "null and void". But as I say, even if they are, I am pretty sure the replacement rules will simply replicate the rules now which appear to have removed the offending points.

As for interaction with 115 - nil. Unlawful APT plays no part and offers no defence to any of the allegations made vs City. Zero. If they did a) City wouldn't have waited to Feb 2024 b) they would have made them part of the defence (potentially by way of a counter claim). You can't defend the allegation of false accounting (concealed and deliberate) in 2010 (say) with the argument that 10 years later the PL brought in rules with elements that made them unlawful. It is a nonsense argument and one City won't run.

What about the last two groups on the list I quoted? The APT rules are integral to PSR.

• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.

• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.

 

[slbsn]

What about the last two groups on the list I quoted?

• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.

• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.

No defence to either of those at all. You can’t defend genuine non cooperation because you consider some other rules unlawful. As for PSR there is no realistic chance that PSR is null and void - not even City believe that. And even if those charges didn’t exist, they make no difference because to have got to the point where they bite, we’d already have lost on the alleged false accounting over a decade. If we lose that a few extra breaches are neither here nor there.

 

[slbsn]

Wouldn’t the ultimate impact be that clubs would have to amend their own financial projections and plans going forward and either not be able to spend what they had planned to or be forced to sell players to accommodate the revised interest payments?

No. Shareholder probably won’t exist going forward. Owners will put money in as equity

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

No defence to either of those at all. You can’t defend genuine non cooperation because you consider some other rules unlawful. As for PSR there is no realistic chance that PSR is null and void - not even City believe that. And even if those charges didn’t exist, they make no difference because to have got to the point where they bite, we’d already have lost on the alleged false accounting over a decade. If we lose that a few extra breaches are neither here nor there.

Next you'll be saying there is no chance of the club going nuclear and taking down the entire PL....