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

[WRicko]

Some success seems odd the challenge is APTs so you either win or loose that I suppose you could add have they been bias in application and do we get compensation but that seems a lot less important

 

[slbsn]

Could be that we won but could not claim damages?

One for @projectriver if he can read between the lines. Not sure how Ziegler would know.

Very unlikely anything has come from City. I suspect it is whispers in the game. It is public that City felt some aspects went well. Ultimately, it could mean anything. And the damages assessment is a separate hearing if City were to win. I wouldn't put much on that aspect of the piece.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Some success seems odd the challenge is APTs so you either win or loose that I suppose you could add have they been bias in application and do we get compensation but that seems a lot less important

You have to put all the arguments forward as to why the rules, in your opinion, are illegal. It seems to me the arbitrators may agree with all the arguments, some of them or none of them.

 

[petrusha]

Some success seems odd the challenge is APTs so you either win or loose that I suppose you could add have they been bias in application and do we get compensation but that seems a lot less important

I'm sorry, but that's not right at all. Back in a previous lifetime, I was involved in a couple of legal challenges to the validity of regulatory rules based on competition law grounds. And I did say a little while ago that the outcome of the proceedings at hand could entirely feasibly be that rules dealing with APTs in themselves aren't anti-competitive, but some aspects of the way the PL has attempted to implement this principle in its rules could be unlawful. It's also perfectly possible that, as a result, neither side would be entirely satisfied with the outcome of the proceedings.

However, we can't make a proper assessment as to who'll be happy or otherwise until we have a lot more information. At present, assuming Ziegler's comments last night on X to be true, I suspect that the Panel has informed the parties in broad terms that the application of the PL's current APT rules should be suspended pending a revised version being passed that doesn't contain the unlawful elements of the previous version. I further surmise that the PL has had to communicate this to its member clubs, which is where the leak to Ziegler has come from.

I doubt that at this stage anyone, even the parties to the case, knows more about what the Panel has deemed to be unlawful or whether it's prepared to move on to considering a claim by City for damages arising from the previous detrimental application of rules we've alleged to be unlawful. Whether that leaks in due course remains to be seen.

Too busy to deal with any questions today, so this is all I'll say on the matter.

 

[WRicko]

Don’t suppose APT will affect transfer but I am going to pretend it does if we sign someone for 100 million maybe more of a clue on the bigger case ?

 

[Gingers Dad]

It’s only ever been a muffin.

Fucking ‘barm’ pots!

Blueberry or chocolate chip?

Barms for bacon or chips

 

[Centurions]

Don’t suppose APT will affect transfer but I am going to pretend it does if we sign someone for 100 million maybe more of a clue on the bigger case ?

No, it doesn't.

 

[spacecadet]

The unsuccessful bit will be we are not getting compo.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Imagine a journalist admitting city have had any success at all.

Must have been a massive win for us they’re going to try to twist into a defeat but finding it difficult

 

[TinFoilHat]

City win case but will be hidden underneath all the anti city news when the 115 case begins...