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

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Not realistic to think the PL could lose, leave the rules in and everyone just pretend to forget about the case.

That's not actually what I'm pretending. Quite clearly there are major differences between APD and retain and transfer but from 1948 onwards they appear to have been convinced that the system was untenable, as did the players' union. That's why players who "caused a fuss" and their clubs got a fee but players who were not prepared to make trouble did not. The union was not prepared for expensive legal action and seemed to acquiesce. The big difference is that there was no court case noo tribunal or the like until Eastham in 1963. I think there are similarities with sponsorship deals, RPD and APD now, but these tend to concern UEFA rather than the PL until now. UEFA's and the PL's position on sponsorship appears to go beyond the rights of a football authority, and I don't believe FMV has been used to cause City difficulty. Nor has it caused, for instance, Leicester City problems. In the case of PSG, though it was used to reduce a totally absurd deal (in UEFA's/FMV terms) to a marginally less absurd deal. What I'm arguing is that the football authorities use their position and regulations to obstruct and "waste time" before the court action. In the near past two (or more!) seasons out of the CL would have really caused City problems and now a couple of seasons in the Northern Premier could destroy us before the courts can put the matter right.

 

[jrb]

Question to Barristers, Lawyers, and Solicitors.

At the end of a hearing/case do you get a genuine gut feeling off how the hearing/case went from the evidence put forward by both sides? Will our team genuinely know if they have won, lost, or if they aren't sure.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Question to Barristers, Lawyers, and Solicitors.

At the end of a hearing/case, do you get a genuine gut feeling off how the hearing went from the evidence put forward by both sides?

Let me answer for the legal fraternity on here. The answer is unequivocally:

Yes and no.

 

[MarsLlama]

wouldn't they have to make it public though, as they'd have to change the rules (back)

Eventually yes, I think if another change to the rule comes within the next 6 months/year it's safe to say we've won.

 

[citizen_maine]

Eventually yes, I think if another change to the rule comes within the next 6 months/year it's safe to say we've won.

I'd imagine they'd want it changed ASAP if we're suing them for losses as a result

 

[halfcenturyup]

Eventually yes, I think if another change to the rule comes within the next 6 months/year it's safe to say we've won.

There is a mechanism in the rules for the Judicial Panel to distribute the award to the clubs when it is a point of law or of "wider application". If the rules are found to be illegal, the clubs would, at least, have to be told they are no longer enforceable, I imagine. So I am pretty sure news would leak out if City is at all successful.

 

[its a Barm]

Sorry but I really don't have time to read every last 100 pages do we not get to find out a verdict on the case I don't understand, please help an old man.

 

[cheekybids]

Let me answer for the legal fraternity on here. The answer is unequivocally:

Yes and no.

You missed off maybe…..

 

[Mid Wales blue]

Has @Cellarite got his corned beef and ketchup sarnies packed and hiding in Pannick’s hedge yet?

No, but I’ve heard he’s deep in Pannick’s secretaries bush!

 

[BlueRockape]

I'd imagine they'd want it changed ASAP if we're suing them for losses as a result

Or if we win we will not pursue a claim for damages IF they drop the 115 ;)