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

[halfcenturyup]

Why would Villa not vote against it?

They weren't in Europe at the time, I would guess, and wanted to be by limiting others' investment. Now they are in, they want to stay in and so are more aggressive against rules that prevent them investing .... it's all self-interest, which is what is wrong with the whole thing.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks for the summary. One question arises. We do not know the detailed cause of action as City have never disclosed it. Have they challenged the whole rule or just selected aspects?

Good question. I am guessing (I am no lawyer, of course) that the complaint is against the whole thing with arguments against the various parts, some of which will succeed I am guessing (again) and some of which won't.

Seems like the sort of approach a lawyer would take. Aim high and then take the various wins and losses?

 

[Asa's left peg]

Reported as two abstentions, 12 for, 6 against.

City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Everton, Nottingham Forest and Sheffield United apparently voted against.

The two abstentions were reported as Burnley and Palace, iirc. The fuckers.

And the rest of the absolute fuckers seemingly voted for.

Significant American presence at those two.

 

[WRicko]

Unless you have inside info, you have no idea what the cause of action is, as City have not disclosed it.

Well everyone has been saying it related to APT and there does not appear someone correct me please a rule that allows the Premier league to rule on all sponsorships just related party and APT

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well everyone has been saying it related to APT and there does not appear someone correct me please a rule that allows the Premier league to rule on all sponsorships just related party and APT

Clubs have to report any transaction (other than general operating expenses) over 1 million to the PL (threshold transactions) and then the PL determines if it is an APT (which definition also includes relted party transactions, of course, as that definition is more widely writen) or "otherwise than at arm's length". If the PL makes either of these determinations, then the FMV rules start.

Iirc.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Significant American presence at those two.

Yes, that vote did seem very coincidental and not just a litle, err ...., arranged.

 

[Gazza]

Clubs have to report any transaction (other than general operating expenses) over 1 million to the PL (threshold transactions) and then the PL determines if it is an APT (which definition also includes relted party transactions, of course, as that definition is more widely writen) or "otherwise than at arm's length". If the PL makes either of these determinations, then the FMV rules start.

Iirc.

Maybe we need a thousand sponsors each paying £999,999 ;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe we need a thousand sponsors each paying £999,999 ;-)

It's what Chelsea would do ......

 

[KS55]

Well everyone has been saying it related to APT and there does not appear someone correct me please a rule that allows the Premier league to rule on all sponsorships just related party and APT

Non sequitur. The question was how do you know what City’s challenge was, not what was the rule? Yes it was about sponsorship rules but which? See post #6862.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Unless you have inside info, you have no idea what the cause of action is, as City have not disclosed it.

It has been reported that sponsorship deals we'd negotiated had been negatively impacted by these new rules.