The 115 charges came well before City lodged charges against the PL in respect of APT though. For me, the motivation for the 115 charges was a show of strength by the PL, designed to humiliate City, and probably heavily supported by our enemies.
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
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
still ouch thoughNo, interest from 22 Nov 24
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
there'd be no rulesNow ......just imagine for a minute if we hadn't come along.
That picture of the red yank cartel in a restaurant in New York will remain with me forever and ever !!
Benefit yes. Unlawful benefit not sure. I’m not sure how the law would work in this situation. Fairness dictates no retrospective punishment in my view (not a legal view per se more what is objectively equitable in my opinion). But as I have said I think the mitigation would save any punished clubsIf the PSR results for 2022/23 and 2023/24 aren't restated for interest on shareholder loans in the 2024/25 and 2025/26 assessments, isn't @Maly right that some clubs will still receive an unlawful benefit for 2022 to 2024 in the three year assessments going forward until 2025/26 (as well as for previous years historically)?
Edit: That's the problem for me with these new rules. They are cementing in place unlawful treatments for a period of time. I always thought that ignorance was no defence when it came to law. It's unfortunate for some clubs but surely corrective action is needed?
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I should stick to enjoying my retirement rather than embarking on a journalistic career.The 115 charges came well before City lodged charges against the PL in respect of APT though. For me, the motivation for the 115 charges was a show of strength by the PL, designed to humiliate City, and probably heavily supported by our enemies.
Point taken.
Gone for a Burton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 4,958
- Team supported
- City
115 ,268, 369,1476.The 115 charges came well before City lodged charges against the PL in respect of APT though. For me, the motivation for the 115 charges was a show of strength by the PL, designed to humiliate City, and probably heavily supported by our enemies.
UEFA,FA,PL,VAR,Pgmol, The League of the fucking cross.
rags,dippers,arse,spuds,the hateful eight,eighteen,twohundred and seventy six and fucking more.
Put any number on it and they have been trying for 15 years to DESTROY our club to maintain to red cabal status quo.
City are the ONLY club to challenge them.
We done it on the pitch and we'll do it in the courts if necessary.
Khaldoon said "Once and for all".
That'll do for me.
Burn them City,fucking burn them !!
My take on this.
City handled the changes well despite the outcry (we advised it was unlawful, followed through and ended up being right.
It seems clear that PL changed the rules knowing they were unlawful or could be unlawful.
Since the judgment again our conduct has been reasonable. The way PL has acted will be judged soon. Now they may have acted quickly to close a gap and if they have then you can understand why they would have. Now it depends on your advice and a bit of luck (no advice is going to be guaranteed to be right as legislation does have an element of unpredictability especially if there is no framework).
If it proves that the changes they make is correct once the judgment has come out, then we have to accept it and I believe the club will too.
City handled the changes well despite the outcry (we advised it was unlawful, followed through and ended up being right.
It seems clear that PL changed the rules knowing they were unlawful or could be unlawful.
Since the judgment again our conduct has been reasonable. The way PL has acted will be judged soon. Now they may have acted quickly to close a gap and if they have then you can understand why they would have. Now it depends on your advice and a bit of luck (no advice is going to be guaranteed to be right as legislation does have an element of unpredictability especially if there is no framework).
If it proves that the changes they make is correct once the judgment has come out, then we have to accept it and I believe the club will too.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,435
Benefit yes. Unlawful benefit not sure. I’m not sure how the law would work in this situation. Fairness dictates no retrospective punishment in my view (not a legal view per se more what is objectively equitable in my opinion). But as I have said I think the mitigation would save any punished clubs
Fair enough, thanks. I am not so interested in the effect on clubs with shareholder loans, but in the principle and, as you can probably tell from my previous posts, whether that principle can he applied to FFP/PSR. But you have already told me what you think is most likely to happen, and why, so no need to indulge me any further :)
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 4,080
This is the part I don’t understand
If the new laws don’t retrospectively include interest in the shareholder loans, don’t the clubs who have shareholder loans get an advantage for the next 3 years due to the rolling 3 year PSR calculations?
Therefore, aren’t we in exactly the same position as before? By design, isn’t it favouring clubs with shareholder loans?
Or have I completely misunderstood the new rules?
yep that's exactly what my thoughts are as well. There's only three ways forward to make them legal.
#1 Treat this season as year 1 of the PSR calculation and exclude previuos years
#2 Add the interest to the previous two years into the rolling 3 year calculation
#3 script APT all together
I can't see anything else working and even #2 you could argue it would be illegal to punish the teams with shareholder loans when they were comply with written rules. So really only #1 and #3 are the way forward
Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
I think we all agree that you amend the rules so that they’re lawful.Benefit yes. Unlawful benefit not sure. I’m not sure how the law would work in this situation. Fairness dictates no retrospective punishment in my view (not a legal view per se more what is objectively equitable in my opinion). But as I have said I think the mitigation would save any punished clubs
Then I don’t much care if they are back dated or not. As I think if they make someone fail psr you declare mitigating circumstances and let it be (fair or not).
I know it’s not a loophole but you consider it similar to a smart workaround like Chelsea length of contract trick or clubs selling youth players to each other for high fees.
Close the legal, and move on.
Although I’d prefer they scrap the lot.