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

[slbsn]

Surely the original tribunal in its "partial final award" has reserved to itself the possibility of granting remedy to City (and costs).

#604: Injunctive relief and damages are also sought. We reserve our jurisdiction to grant such relief. We do not [do] so in this Award because we heard no submissions as to such relief and in any event we consider that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in the light of our conclusions.

#605. We also reserve all questions of costs.

If I read that right, they expected City and the PL to be discussing how to compensate City for restricting our sponsorship. Instead, rather than negotiate with City, the PL have ignored City's representations that the "amended" rules were still unlawful, and forced them through.

It's now open to City to ask the original tribunal for damages and injunctive relief. I think City could have sought an injunction to stop the new rules (if they were still unlawful) but maybe preferred to let things play out, knowing the final final award of the tribunal is on the way.

If I am right, and the PL has just voted in new unlawful rules, the PL has just added contumacy to its sins.

Yes I think City may still get damages but I assume they haven’t sought an injunction or we’d know about it

 

[chaddblue]

I don’t know if it’s been mentioned on here already or not, but here it goes.

Liverpool fan, Lord Bassam of Brighton has proposed an amendment in the football governance bill that would prohibit owners who are heads of states, or members of an government (world wide), immediate family members of any of those, and any sovereign wealth fund.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3832/stages/19262/amendments/10015901

Liverpool and their chums are not satisfied with doing the work via the Premier League, but are trying to enact actual laws of the land to prevent any competition.

Funnily enough, he hasn’t proposed any laws to force the removal of any clubs owners who have tried to form any breakaway leagues (ESL), or steal control of football in England (project big picture).

Silly old ****

 

[KS55]

I'm not proposing anything, I'm just saying that if you're targeting ownership then Mansour is our controlling shareholder.

Legal Ownership is not the same as having a majority shareholding in a company further up the chart or even owning the ultimate parent.
Mansour appears in City’s accounts very specifically as NOT the owner but as a person of influence. So you could regulate him out but not by pretending he is the legal owner.

 

[Bluewonder]

Legal Ownership is not the same as having a majority shareholding in a company further up the chart or even owning the ultimate parent.
Mansour appears in City’s accounts very specifically as NOT the owner but as a person of influence. So you could regulate him out but not by pretending he is the legal owner.

He is the legal owner.

 

[Tab]

I don’t post very often and I am far too long in the tooth to throw a hissy fit about being 2nd in the league and well placed in the champions league.

But my thoughts.
Complacency must set in when you have won the lot.
Has the club took their eye off the ball with all the legal shite.
The midfield for me is the problem, Gundo off the pace, Bernie i love but where the fuck is he meant to be playing, Phil on the top of his game is great going forward but lets be honest he couldn't tackle a big dinner as they say in my part of the world.

We made ridiculous decisions in the summer no Rodri back up or no Haaland back up.

Yesterday why did we not change anything till 75 mins, 3 nil down with at least Savio, Phil, Rico all needing to be changed with Kevin , Jack and Nunes all watching on.

I’ve no answers but we have the team the manager we just need to keep the faith as class is permanent form is temporary.

Win at Anfield and we have the team to do that and the world looks different.

Agh wrong thread, thats why i dont post

 

[KS55]

He is the legal owner.

He is not City’s Legal owner. That is our single shareholder CFG. It’s a very simple legal point. Why do you think Mansour is designated in the accounts as a person of influence?
Any Act must be specific as to whom it it is regulating.
Anyhow, this amendment will fail at the first hurdle, so it’s moot.

 

[WRicko]

He is not City’s Legal owner. That is our single shareholder CFG. It’s a very simple legal point. Why do you think Mansour is designated in the accounts as a person of influence?
Any Act must be specific as to whom it it is regulating.
Anyhow, this amendment will fail at the first hurdle, so it’s moot.

But if he owns most of CFG then surely that makes him majority legal owner

 

[KS55]

But if he owns most of CFG then surely that makes him majority legal owner

Do you know what a legal owner is? I think not.

 

[Blueboy73]

Or any proposal to force the removal of sponsors who have funded terrorist organisations. Or sponsors whose country have taken part in genocide. Or minority owners who have dodged paying tax to HMRC.

Or clubs whose fans were responsible for the deaths of opposition supporters.

 

[Chris-NCL]

Do you know what a legal owner is? I think not.

The amendment is not limited to owners though, but also directors. Unlike Premier League rules, it is not limited to who is classed as an owner or director of the club, but the holding companies themselves.

For what it is worth, I have emailed a couple of local members of the House of Lords expressing my concern, and asking them to vote the amendment down. I believe it only takes 1 member of the House of Lords voting against an amendment for it to be throw out.
I of the members I contacted is a Newcastle United fan.