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

johnny crossan said:
You are in error, I said the new sponsorships were being reassessed under the PRE FEB Rules having been judged as unfairly blocked under them.
If they remain blocked, as seems distinctly possible on your reading, City will have zero significant wins from the this judgement. That's why I'm backing City's public position - which is one I'd be very grateful for you to point out the problems with and which tbf seem to be also acknowleged by Chris in London, GDM and Petrushka. What have Pannick et al got wrong exactly?
Click to expand...
Of course it is possible that the tabled deal is still blocked. The deal has gone through in part (they are still our sponsor and 24/25 is Y1 of the new deal so we are talking about the extent of the latter years. If it is rejected, City still established Feb 2024 was too far (relevant for deals going forward) and that the PL does not have carte blanche and that threats of legal challenge are real. All of that is significant.

You misunderstand how cases work. Pannick hasn't got anything wrong - these are finally balanced legal arguments on complex areas of competition law. Both sets of barristers will likely look right. But the Tribunal has to pick a side and having read their 175 page partial judgment, they did not seem to be about to say the whole of APT is null and void. There was simply far too much sympathy (or more) with the PLs position. On top of that for the practical reasons I have explained, I see little basis for them insisting APT is redrafted from scratch because the redraft would simply get to the position arrived at on Friday. We know that if that was retabled on Friday next week it would pass. So all the Tribunal would be doing would be creating a chaotic system where clubs could argue every appraisal for the last 3 years was unlawful. I just can't see them doing that.

BUT I MAY BE WRONG.
 
slbsn said:
Of course it is possible that the tabled deal is still blocked. The deal has gone through in part (they are still our sponsor and 24/25 is Y1 of the new deal so we are talking about the extent of the latter years. If it is rejected, City still established Feb 2024 was too far (relevant for deals going forward) and that the PL does not have carte blanche and that threats of legal challenge are real. All of that is significant.

You misunderstand how cases work. Pannick hasn't got anything wrong - these are finally balanced legal arguments on complex areas of competition law. Both sets of barristers will likely look right. But the Tribunal has to pick a side and having read their 175 page partial judgment, they did not seem to be about to say the whole of APT is null and void. There was simply far too much sympathy (or more) with the PLs position. On top of that for the practical reasons I have explained, I see little basis for them insisting APT is redrafted from scratch because the redraft would simply get to the position arrived at on Friday. We know that if that was retabled on Friday next week it would pass. So all the Tribunal would be doing would be creating a chaotic system where clubs could argue every appraisal for the last 3 years was unlawful. I just can't see them doing that.

BUT I MAY BE WRONG.
Click to expand...
I agree the APT redraft is a win going forward but a very limited one if our new deal remains blocked. On the other hand if the new PL rules are found to be unlawful by object again and need to be rewritten again I'm thinking City will be after very substantial damages for the losses they've incurred as a result. That would be a big win!
 
johnny crossan said:
What's unfair, I just want to know why Stefan repeatedly dismisses the club's case. No explanation is ever offered, he just calls a it 'extreme' and highly unlikely to be endorsed by the panel. If it is isn't and our our new sponsor deals remain blocked it'll be total victory for the PL.
Click to expand...
By the way, I answered this question last time too
 
johnny crossan said:
I agree the APT redraft is a win going forward but a very limited one if our new deal remains blocked. On the other hand if the new PL rules are found to be unlawful by object again and need to be rewritten again I'm thinking City will be after very substantial damages for the losses they've incurred as a result. That would be a big win!
Click to expand...
There won't be big damages because they don't have big losses. City will simply renegotiate the Etihad deal at lower levels in the later years and get it approved. There was no suggestion that I could see that the Tribunal thought the PLs consideration of the facts presented was faulty - they liked the PL process. They just agreed with City that it should be quicker and City should have some data to try and convince the PL. If City use that data but it is still rejected, what is City's loss? Nil.

And the new rules won't be found to be unlawful by object unless the Tribunal really believes in retrospective action on shareholder loans and the absence of transitional rules. Again, I can't see it.

Last reply
 
slbsn said:
There won't be big damages because they don't have big losses. City will simply renegotiate the Etihad deal at lower levels in the later years and get it approved. There was no suggestion that I could see that the Tribunal thought the PLs consideration of the facts presented was faulty - they liked the PL process. They just agreed with City that it should be quicker and City should have some data to try and convince the PL. If City use that data but it is still rejected, what is City's loss? Nil.

And the new rules won't be found to be unlawful by object unless the Tribunal really believes in retrospective action on shareholder loans and the absence of transitional rules. Again, I can't see it.

Last reply
Click to expand...
@slbsn - are City satisfied with the outcome? Was it worth it? I was initially pleased because it seemed we’d “won” but as time goes on it’s beginning to seem that we’ve not gained much. I know it’s been explained at length but - as is evident from the disputes on here - it’s far too complicated to grasp for most & we don’t really know whether to be pleased or not?
 
CC1 said:
@slbsn - are City satisfied with the outcome? Was it worth it? I was initially pleased because it seemed we’d “won” but as time goes on it’s beginning to seem that we’ve not gained much. I know it’s been explained at length but - as is evident from the disputes on here - it’s far too complicated to grasp for most & we don’t really know whether to be pleased or not?
Click to expand...
I think City are satisfied and that they believe it was worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.