It is 2/3 of those that vote and abstentions are non votes.
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
ganganvince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 6,700
I assume an abstention is not a voteI don't know if anyone else has mentioned this but Martin Ziegler at The Times tweeted this in February 2024 (see image).
So these ATP rules were amended in November 2023 based on 12 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions. Obviously all 20 clubs voted, but only 60% voted for the change, yet it was passed.
Rule 14.10 states a 2/3 majority of those voting is required. 13 votes would be 65% and 14 votes is 70%. So you need 14 votes to pass these changes. If only 18 clubs had voted, then they would have had the 2/3 majority. Obviously, this is down to how you read that rule.
If what Ziegler reports is true, I would expect this to be a point raised in City's current claim. Whilst I can't see how City could lose this point, a skilled lawyer could argue otherwise.
It's a crucial point because regardless of whatever City claim in the 165 page document, it's a valid argument to put forward ie not frivolous at all. I'm pretty certain the defence can argue to strike out a claim if it is frivolous without actually hearing the case.
That then ensures that "disclosure" happens. This is where the current case could provide City with a lot of crucial evidence fighting the 115 charges and subsequently claiming substantial damages.
So this ATP rule change could hand City the initiative in a way they never expected?
It is a split trial. First hearing to establish liability (are City right) and if City are right and the rules were unlawful, a quantum and causation hearing (at some future date) to assess loss (if any).If we are found to be correct is their a provision for damages or would this be separate to the arbitration.
Sounds fun.It is a split trial. First hearing to establish liability (are City right) and if City are right and the rules were unlawful, a quantum and causation hearing (at some future date) to assess loss (if any).
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,176
- Team supported
- City
I suspect we'll find nothing at all out. The question is whether the APD rules are enforceable. If they are not, the PL does not need even to remove these rules - it simply never enforces them in the event of a "breach". The situation is reminiscent of the retain and transfer regulations. As early as 1948 the football authorities were informed that the contract signed by players was unenforceable and, in fact, a waste of paper. The KC who represented the king informed the players' union that he would take a case on the matter for nothing but the union saw no point in going to court when the club involved gave way and granted the transfer (to save the principle?). This was the pattern for the next 15 years; clubs gave way and conceded the transfer when players persisted. Not until George Eastham's club insisted on retaining his registration after his contract expired did the courts become involved and declare the retain and transfer system to be unenforceable. And in fact it took a judgement in the Bosman case before the system vanished for good and all - and by that time Bosman himself was a penniless alcoholic. I doubt the PL would go to such extremes, if we win City might ensure that every club finds out about the ruling, but then again, maybe not.
St Helens Blue (Exiled)
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 May 2011
- Messages
- 13,744
Irrefutable Evidence
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
What if the majority abstain from voting? Say for example 14 abstain, 4 vote for and 2 against, does the vote still carry?It is 2/3 of those that vote and abstentions are non votes.
I thought the whole point was that 14 votes were required to carry a proposal?
I’m probably showing myself to being a bit thick though.
Not realistic to think the PL could lose, leave the rules in and everyone just pretend to forget about the case.I suspect we'll find nothing at all out. The question is whether the APD rules are enforceable. If they are not, the PL does not need even to remove these rules - it simply never enforces them in the event of a "breach". The situation is reminiscent of the retain and transfer regulations. As early as 1948 the football authorities were informed that the contract signed by players was unenforceable and, in fact, a waste of paper. The KC who represented the king informed the players' union that he would take a case on the matter for nothing but the union saw no point in going to court when the club involved gave way and granted the transfer (to save the principle?). This was the pattern for the next 15 years; clubs gave way and conceded the transfer when players persisted. Not until George Eastham's club insisted on retaining his registration after his contract expired did the courts become involved and declare the retain and transfer system to be unenforceable. And in fact it took a judgement in the Bosman case before the system vanished for good and all - and by that time Bosman himself was a penniless alcoholic. I doubt the PL would go to such extremes, if we win City might ensure that every club finds out about the ruling, but then again, maybe not.
It is not 14 required. It is 2/3 and only subject to a quorate meetingWhat if the majority abstain from voting? Say for example 14 abstain, 4 vote for and 2 against, does the vote still carry?
I thought the whole point was that 14 votes were required to carry a proposal?
I’m probably showing myself to being a bit thick though.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Oh hello stranger!Irrefutable Evidence
Long time no see.