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

CC1 said:
Bit arrogant that pal.

There’s no date on it but if that was issued in Feb I now understand Stefan’s comment a bit more ie as there is no change in the new version issued July 24 then there’s either no decision from the hearing yet - or the PL have won because they’ve kept the APT rules the same.

All very confusing certainly.
Click to expand...
No arrogance intended- just my humour. Maybe I should have put a :-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
NZBlue said:
No arrogance intended- just my humour. Maybe I should have put a :-)
Click to expand...
if I could summarise that document I’d understand the issues more :-)

Let’s hope that as there are no changes in the latest version - according to Stefan - that the decision hadn’t been reached at time of publication - rather than the PL have won the recent hearing.
Strange no leaks about the outcome from the tainted media
 
oldius said:
It seems pretty clear to me then that we have either lost, or there has been no decision, or we have won.
Click to expand...

manimanc said:
I think you've covered all bases there.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.
 
petrusha said:
I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.
Click to expand...

Maybe it’s the result City expects & like with UEFA being bypassed to CAS we are showing early that if there any funny business / corrupt decisions around our sponsors it will lead to us suing.
 
petrusha said:
I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.
Click to expand...

I agree but think that, even in that case, the panel would have to make a determination in relation to any specific instances of its implementation that we may have complained about and that might lead to a consequent compensation claim
 
petrusha said:
I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that is the most likely outcome.

In this FFP age, I don't think anyone can complain about income having to be within the realm of a reasonable fair value whether we are talking about related parties, associated parties or neither, in fact. The questions are how is that fair value determined and what are the consequences? And this is where the PL will struggle with the February changes, imho.
 
So basically City want our Sponsors ie Etihad etc to be able to pay as much as they want but the Premier League want it regulated so the sponsorship will be market value and not inflated ?
If so I can't see how City will win the case ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.