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

[halfcenturyup]

Why the fuck has this civil war narrative got so much traction? It's entirely irrelevant who sides with the premier league and who sides with city. unless I'm wrong, it's my understanding city are claiming it's unlawful, therefore there is no side to choose, it is against the law or it isn't regardless of whether a club approves of it or not.

I suppose there are two issues. Firstly, if the rules are anti-competitive and secondly, whether certain exemptions from competition law should be made in this case because it's a sporting body.

The first is completely factual with legal precedent and what other clubs think is irrelevant. The second may be influenced by the views of other clubs, I suppose.

I still can't get my head around the fact that such issues can be settled by an arbitration within the PL rules. Can they set legal precedent (say, in regard to the special situation of the PL in competition law? That has never been legally tested as far as I am aware)? With arbitrators from a list chosen by the chairman of a judicial panel chosen by the PL? I struggle with all that.

 

[cheekybids]

Isn't it a bit crazy, how this is always the press reaction, whenever anyone dares question if the PL might be in the wrong, or is attempting to stop the PL doing what they believe is wrong? Especially City or any clubs with Persian gulf links.

"OMG this could destroy all of football, they questioned if a rule needs to be changed because it seems unfair and unlawful... Somebody think of the red shirts!"

Apart from when Forest & Everton questioned if the premier league was wrong. Suddenly that was ok provided “whatabout City” was included.

 

[Paladin]

Matt Lawson knows. But the fucker will never say which club it was,

Simple answer. The PL charges every other team for failing to act in good faith towards other clubs. The one that refuses to corporate is the guilty party, and can have a non-cooperation charge included for good measure.

 

[KS55]

City should really boil some piss and announce some new large sponsorship deals with companies not from the UAE. Khaldoon's blackbook of contacts must be off the scale.

Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I think the PL will examine ANY sponsorship deal under the Feb rule change, not just ‘Associated’.

 

[Gray]

Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I think the PL will examine ANY sponsorship deal under the Feb rule change, not just ‘Associated’.

They don’t seem to look at the Rags overinflated deals, or the fact that they are in debt.

 

[KS55]

That's exactly what we should be doing next.
Ban all the cunts.
Really pisses me off they get to slag us off all day every day, call us cheats, call us corrupt and we welcome them with open arms, give them free food and drink.
Fuck that!
Ban the cunts!
What they gonna do write a load crap slagging us off?
That horse has long since bolted.

Even better:
-Let them in but don’t let them out.
-Block their connections so their copy doesn’t reach their office until we have approved it under our new rule:‘Associated Media Cunts.’
- Withdraw cake rights.
- Add large amounts of laxative to their tea. I mean LARGE amounts. Deny access to toilets.

 

[KS55]

Mate, no offense, and I have no training/qualifications in law, but the only issue being ruled on(law) is APT and if it conflicts with Competition laws.

The club, and anyone with a voice, can shout about the 14 vote rule and it being used by a core of teams to try and restrict what City can do, but it’s the method chosen by the PL and we have no legal claim to force them to change it.

I doubt City are asking for it to be changed but it is evidentiary noise.

 

[KS55]

Why the fuck has this civil war narrative got so much traction? It's entirely irrelevant who sides with the premier league and who sides with city. unless I'm wrong, it's my understanding city are claiming it's unlawful, therefore there is no side to choose, it is against the law or it isn't regardless of whether a club approves of it or not.

The other clubs can provide evidence that City have not been targeted selectively as alleged.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I think the PL will examine ANY sponsorship deal under the Feb rule change, not just ‘Associated’.

The PL are required to look at any threshold transaction, that is any transaction over a certain amount to check if it is i) an APT, in which case there are other more detailed rules to follow (rules E55-E59) and ii) at FMV (rules E60-E64).

So even if the club gets the more onerous and, in their view, discriminatory, APT rules thrown out, the PL can still look at FMV. Hardly, end of the PL stuff.

I think :)

 

[urban genie]

So Lawtons sports desk colleague wife works at Arsenal and accidentaly left details of the court case on the breakfast table?
What we are contesting was reported first in feb with no one really arsed bar a few 115 comments.
Liverpools sponsor found to be terroritst funding dodgy cunts

Tory press office tactic this or sensationaism to bury bad news imho