cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,081
Best wishes for your wife mate
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
Best wishes for your wife mate
Mr Ed (The Stables)
Well-Known Member
I hope your wife's ok and she makes a full recovery.Presumably he's referring to this article:-
Although it only says it's "imminent" (yes, really).
It does name the 3 judges which I don't think I've seen previously but then I've been busy as the wife had a couple of mini strokes. I'm only on here as a sort of time out :(
"The Lawyer website has reported that the independent panel involved in the APT arbitration is made up of three of the most experienced and respected judges in the country. The three tribunal members are all retired senior judges: Sir Nigel Teare, Lord John Dyson KC and Christopher Vajda KC.
Lord Dyson, a former Master of the Rolls, is also a former Justice of the Supreme Court and over the past five years has sat on the appeal tribunals for Sheffield Wednesday, Derby County and Nottingham Forest’s PSR cases."
Can you please link to the relevant podcast? ThanksListen to the Athletic podcast on this case, a very good listen.
They made a very good argument that say a UAE business wants to sponsor us because it's makes them look good and brings in very good revenue/exposure in that area, they are more than happy to pay a premium to make that happen.
Can you please link to the relevant podcast? Thanks
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
Sorry to hear that blue I hope she recovers soonPresumably he's referring to this article:-
Although it only says it's "imminent" (yes, really).
It does name the 3 judges which I don't think I've seen previously but then I've been busy as the wife had a couple of mini strokes. I'm only on here as a sort of time out :(
"The Lawyer website has reported that the independent panel involved in the APT arbitration is made up of three of the most experienced and respected judges in the country. The three tribunal members are all retired senior judges: Sir Nigel Teare, Lord John Dyson KC and Christopher Vajda KC.
Lord Dyson, a former Master of the Rolls, is also a former Justice of the Supreme Court and over the past five years has sat on the appeal tribunals for Sheffield Wednesday, Derby County and Nottingham Forest’s PSR cases."
Moss Side's Finest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2018
- Messages
- 1,278
It's mad to think that if it's UAE sponsorship it's deemed questionable in terms of over market value etc. And yet if its from the USA it's deemed just fine regardless.
Let's not forget, over 10 years ago the rags signed a $600m shirt sponsor with Chevrolet that was so obscenely over inflated that the executive who signed it was fired by Chevrolet themselves. Yet, there was no widespread media or PL concern that the deal was questionable....
Let's not forget, over 10 years ago the rags signed a $600m shirt sponsor with Chevrolet that was so obscenely over inflated that the executive who signed it was fired by Chevrolet themselves. Yet, there was no widespread media or PL concern that the deal was questionable....
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
It may be one of the easier "wins", though, as my feeling is s that the PL has no right to demand anything of third parties (compare to investigations, for example).
Pretty sure there are other more meaty areas up for grabs, but we shall have to wait and see :)
I'm a bit bored of speculating when we have very little to go on, but it's difficult not to.
As regards requiring third party information, for me, it's not so much that they have attempted to award themselves the powers but that they can then punish the subject of the investigation if the third party tells them to f-off which they are perfectly entitled to do. That is one draconian power they want there that even a government would baulk at.
As regards it not being "meaty", I reckon the ramifications as regards cooperation could be pretty far reaching. All very frustrating.
Pingu the Penguin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 7,609
Agree. And it is likely to put organisations off investing in football. Which presumably is not positive for anyoneI'm a bit bored of speculating when we have very little to go on, but it's difficult not to.
As regards requiring third party information, for me, it's not so much that they have attempted to award themselves the powers but that they can then punish the subject of the investigation if the third party tells them to f-off which they are perfectly entitled to do. That is one draconian power they want there that even a government would baulk at.
As regards it not being "meaty", I reckon the ramifications as regards cooperation could be pretty far reaching. All very frustrating.
If I die in the Kippax St
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 356
An excellent post btw. Your analysis makes complete sense and logic would suggest that there are wins for both parties but then logic doesn’t always prevail. Having said that I think your points are on the moneyNo lawyer, but .....
I think the difference is that the salary cap in the Saracens case was applied equally across all clubs in the league. The APT rules, as can be shown by the timing of their introduction and the definition of associated party, unfairly affect clubs that have a certain type of owner and a consequent type of business model.
I don't know if the club really has the goal of having the whole set of APT rules thrown out (if they wanted that they could have tried that between November 2023 and February 2024, for example). I suppose they could, though, and if they do they will probably not be successful for the stated reasons (which are probably also the reasons FFP itself has never been challenged).
I think it is more likely the club are aiming to have the more discriminatory rules and definitions changed to more generic terms that apply equally irrespective of who the owners care and what the business model is. They could have success there, I think (and let's not forget there were rules around the value of related party transactions before the APT rules, it's not like there isn't a fall-back position for the PL).
Which may be why some press reports say some wins and some defeats for both parties.
By the way, this doesn't mean that the club isn't asking for an assessment of the whole rule set. Why not aim high? I am suggesting their goal is to remove the discriminatory and unnecessarily burdensome nature of the February rule changes to the club and other clubs in the same situation.