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

[SilverFox2]

Truth.

The rolling back of the 2024 changes is good, but I think whether City have "won" or not depends on whether the new Etihad deal is effective or not. I am not clear whether the assessment of the deal being set aside by the tribunal means that the deal is now effective or whether the PL can now re-assess the deal under these new (in the PL's view) lawful rules.

On the wider point of the lawfulness of the new rules, as you say we have to wait for the tribunal's upcoming judgment before that can be determined. Publication of the new rules doesn't really mean anything in isolation, other than that the PL are still doing it their unilateral way.

I think they (PL) will feel it is their right to decide what panel decisions will be then have votes on their (not legal) interpretation.
Bit by bit they will be corrected as indeed bit by bit they demonstrate they are still in charge.

Do you think that until rule changes et al are validated by their legal people we will continue with their legal try ons?

 

[johnny crossan]

Need to pay particular attention to what Stefan described as 'the deletion we specifically didn't know about' ;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes I understand that bit. I'm talking about last night's tweet.
Posters are treating it as the tribunal have made a new ruling and it's a win fir City.
It isn't.
That is why no media outlets are covering it.
I'm not sure why the tweet was posted (no offence slbsn)

It was posted because it shows that there is no reason, in the opinion of the PL or the FA, to wait for the publication of the new rules. If publication had been delayed, it would maybe have indicated something going on behind the scenes (an as yet unannounced tribunal decision maybe, or a decision by the PL or the FA to wait for the tribunal decision).

As it turned out, the publication was within a normal timeframe which in itself is interesting. Sometimes not learning anything new tells you something, nevertheless.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think they (PL) will feel it is their right to decide what panel decisions will be then have votes on their (not legal) interpretation.
Bit by bit they will be corrected as indeed bit by bit they demonstrate they are still in charge.

Do you think that until rule changes et al are validated by their legal people we will continue with their legal try ons?

The PL think the problem is solved now, but we still don't know what the tribunal has said / will say about the question both parties asked: how do we proceed from here? Maybe the tribunal has found / will find in favour of the PL approach, but maybe it hasn't / won't. So we will have to wait and see.

I don't think what the PL wants is anything to do with the tribunal decision although I suppose they may try to present their solution as a fait accompli.

 

[SilverFox2]

The PL think the problem is solved now, but we still don't know what the tribunal has said / will say about the question both parties asked: how do we proceed from here? Maybe the tribunal has found / will find in favour of the PL approach, but maybe it hasn't / won't. So we will have to wait and see.

I don't think what the PL wants is anything to do with the tribunal decision although I suppose they may try to present their solution as a fait accompli.

To be fair I suppose the PL had to do something for Rule Book purposes in the absense of Panel decisions which may or may not be waiting for 130 decisions.