You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,404
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.
You are probably sick to death of answering stupid questions on this topic, but I have two nonetheless.
First stupid question. You say there is "net net" no difference if the tribunal finds for City that the rules are currently null and void. Surely there is in practice a big difference for the club in that the Etihad deal can't be re-assessed as there was no need to report it if the rules didn't exist at the time and so it can just be concluded at the value the club originally proposed?
Second stupid question. You say that, if the tribunal finds that the rules post-vote are lawful but interest should be applied retroactively then any club affected could be given mitigation to avoid sanction. But what about clubs who are affected indirectly? Couldn't they have a case against the PL for any losses incurred due to position or relegation due to the non-sanction of clubs with shareholder loans (in the same way some clubs are claiming compensation from City if the allegations that the club has deliberately and unlawfully breached the PL's rules are proven?). It has already been found by the tribunal that the PL deliberately and unlawfully excluded shareholder loans from APT (and therefore FFP/PSR), as far as I understand it.
It seems to me the PL has problems whatever judgment the tribunal comes up with, unless they fully validate the PL's approach.
But then again, I have no idea what I am talking about really. Just trying to get things straight in my simple mind :)
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,404
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.
Ok. So I have a third stupid question.
If the APT rules are found to be null and void because of the treatment of shareholder loans, and we accept the argument from the PL that the APT rules are a vital part of PSR as the tribunal found, why is there no possibility of a challenge to the lawfulness of the treatment of shareholder loans in FFP/PSR since inception? The ultimate conclusion of which would he "null and void"ing of FFP/PSR in line with the treatment of APT.
Based on what you say, I am sure there must be a reason. But I can't see one, maybe you can help me out.
Or not at all. Some owners/would be owners might not want to reduce their liquidity. Maybe some are not as rich as they claim.No. Shareholder probably won’t exist going forward. Owners will put money in as equity
johnny crossan
Well-Known Member
I would argue we all have a duty not to cooperate with unlawful rules, as City have clearly viewed them from their inception. Further, since there is zero chance of the serious fraud charges being upheld, that leaves no fig leaf victory for the PL to hang a consolatory fine on. Wipe out!!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.
@slsbn you have answered a question I keep asking but please, a slight clarification of your post.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.
To paraphrase you say If the Tribunals decision shows the PL still to be acting unlawfully and the PL don't accept and amend, it is up to City to take them to court.
1) do they have to go before a completely new tribunal or does it go back to the original panel.
2) if the PL refuse to amend the illegal acts forcing City to take them back to court, can they be punished and if so, how ?
3) why would City have to take them back to court. Why can't the tribunal enforce their decision, I.e. keep fining the PL until they conform and act legally.
Well perhaps but if you were prepared to put in an interest free loan I don't see why an owner would be averse to an equity investment.Or not at all. Some owners/would be owners might not want to reduce their liquidity. Maybe some are not as rich as they claim.
calumdown
Well-Known Member
i will win you over eventually :)Why have they capitalised ‘Leading Counsel’ in that statement? Beyond pompous.
City haven't argued that and nor would it succeed. There is no question that the rules on cooperation with the league are lawful and the investigation has always been about the underlying matters of the leak and not, per se, PSR. PSR is a consequential breach if the underlying matters are made out.I would argue we all have a duty not to cooperate with unlawful rules, as City have clearly viewed them from their inception. Further, since there is zero chance of the serious fraud charges being upheld, that leaves no fig leaf victory for the PL to hang a consolatory fine on. Wipe out!!
The harsh reality is that if you are wrong and the fraud is proven, all of this is irrelevant.
1. LiquidityWell perhaps but if you were prepared to put in an interest free loan I don't see why an owner would be averse to an equity investment.
2. If not 75% plus owner, need permission from other shareholders to dilute their holdings, if new shares are to be issued.