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

Citizen Green said:
Martin Samuel doesn't miss.

View attachment 122082
Click to expand...
The above would be superb, but it would have to apply TO ALL THE MAJOR DOMESTIC LEAGUES.

Formula 1 brought in a cost cap a few years ago, it's helping make the sport more competitive but you still will have periods of dominance as seen with Red Bull, they have( had) Adrian Newey the F1 version of Pep.
 
Last edited:
Something else I bumped into while looking around was this (about the previous arbitration and subsequent appeal):

1000000416.png
It may not be so easy for the PL to keep the award secret, even if that is what they wanted to do?
 
CC1 said:
This is the most amazingly unbiased article on City, that I’ve ever read. Shame the morons we bump into in every day life won’t see it. They only read the red tops and are totally unaware of objective facts.

Can someone paste it on every red top fans forum??
Click to expand...
But Samuels is on the city payroll LA
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
halfcenturyup said:
A panel of retired UK judges has begun hearing an arbitration filed by football club Manchester City against the Premier League over allegations the competition’s sponsorship rules are discriminatory.

The hearing began yesterday at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London, where the proceeding is being heard by a tribunal chaired by former High Court judge Sir Nigel Teare.

The panel also includes the former Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, who is now an arbitrator at 39 Essex, and Christopher Vadja KC – the UK’s former judge on the Court of Justice of the European Union who practises at Monckton Chambers.

Manchester City is using Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and a team of barristers in the proceeding, led by Lord Pannick KC of Blackstone Chambers. The Premier League is represented by Slaughter & May and barristers Andrew Hunter KC of Blackstone Chambers and Marie Demetriou KC from Brick Court, among others.

The hearing is expected to last two weeks.

The dispute – which could have a seismic impact on the future of English football – relates to the Premier League’s associated party transaction (APT) rules, which provide that any commercial deal or player transfer between a club and entities with links to that club’s ownership must be conducted at fair market value.

The rules were introduced in December 2021 after Newcastle United was taken over by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, amid concerns the football club could gain a competitive advantage by signing lucrative commercial contracts with Saudi-linked partners and sponsors in the Middle East.

Football clubs with higher declared revenue have greater leeway to spend on transfer fees and wages under the Premier League’s financial sustainability rules.

In February, the Premier League football clubs voted to strengthen the APT rules – bringing in potential sanctions against clubs who try to secure inflated sponsorship deals and placing the onus on clubs to prove that any such deals were conducted at fair value.

Manchester City, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan of the Abu Dhabi ruling family, filed for arbitration under the Premier League rules a week later. Four of the football club’s largest sponsors have links to the UAE, including state-owned Etihad Airways, which sponsors the club’s kit and stadium.

In a 165-page pleading seen by The Times, Manchester City claim they are victims of “discrimination”, that the amended rules were approved by rivals to “stifle” their success on the pitch and is nothing more than “the tyranny of the majority”.

The football club also alleges that the APT rules are in breach of UK competition law. City is reportedly seeking to have those rules scrapped, before pursuing a claim for damages in a second hearing.

Other clubs may be called as witnesses in the proceeding, with one club having already submitted a statement in support of City. At the vote to the strengthen the APT rules in February, six clubs opposed the decision: Manchester City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Everton, Nottingham Forest and Sheffield United.

As per the Premier League rules, the arbitration is being conducted on an ad hoc basis.

If City succeed in scrapping the APT rules, it could have a significant impact on the separate proceeding the Premier League is pursuing over the club’s 115 alleged breaches of the competition’s financial fair play rules.

In that proceeding, which will be heard by an independent commission in November, City is accused of concealing payments from Sheikh Mansour’s Abu Dhabi United Group and disguising them as sponsorship revenue, among other alleged breaches.

If the APT rules are found to be unlawful, it could strengthen City’s defence concerning the legality of the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules.

European football's governing body UEFA had imposed a two-year ban on Manchester City over “serious breaches” of its own financial fair play regulations, although Court of Arbitration for Sport panel later lifted the ban and reduced the fine.

In 2019, the Premier League commenced arbitration to obtain a declaration that Manchester City must disclose documents connected to those alleged breaches.

The ad hoc tribunal in that proceeding – composed of Philip Havers of 1 Crown Office Row as chair, John Machell of Serle Court and Daniel Alexander of 8 New Square – ordered the club to turn over the documents in an award from 2020.

City attempted to challenge the jurisdiction of that tribunal in London’s Commercial Court, which rejected that application and said its decision on the challenge should be made public. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

Manchester City v Premier League

Tribunal

  • Sir Nigel Teare
  • Lord Dyson
  • Christopher Vadja KC
Counsel to Manchester City

  • Lord Pannick KC of Blackstone Chambers
  • Paul Harris KC, Rob Williams KC and David Gregory of Monckton Chambers
  • Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
Partners Deba Das and Rhodri Thomas in London

Counsel to the Premier League

  • Andrew Hunter KC of Blackstone Chambers
  • Marie Demetriou KC, Daniel Piccinin KC, Max Schaefer, Tom Pascoe and Alastair Richardson of Brick Court Chambers
  • Slaughter and May
Partners Richard Swallow, Smriti Sriram and Mark Zerdin in London
Click to expand...
I came across another article on our earlier 2021 arbitration case:

QC arbitrators in Man City case were not “beholden” to Premier League
​


11 August 2021

Posted by Nick Hilborne
Manchester-City.jpg

Manchester City: Claim dismissed
The High Court has rejected a claim by Manchester City football club that there was apparent bias on the part of three QCs sitting on a Premier League arbitration panel.
Mrs Justice Moulder said the arbitrators were not “beholden” to the Premier League simply because they were dependent on it for appointment and reappointment.
The dispute in Manchester City Football Club v the Football Association Premier League [2021] EWHC 628 (Comm) began when the Premier League wrote to the club in December 2018 requesting information and documents relating to a number of potential rule breaches, which followed a hack of emails published in Germany.
The Premier League started arbitration proceedings in October 2019 over the club’s failure to comply with the request.
It appointed Daniel Alexander QC from its arbitration panel, the club appointed John Machell QC also from the panel, and the two arbitrators appointed Philip Havers QC as chairman.
The arbitrators ruled in the summer of 2020 that Manchester City should supply the information and documents.
The club applied for an order under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitral tribunal was wrong to conclude that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. This application was rejected by Moulder J.
The club also sought an order under section 68 on the basis that there was apparent bias on the part of the tribunal and under section 24 removing the tribunal members.
Manchester City, which instructed Lord Pannick QC, argued that there was no written policy or selection criteria for the appointment process, which was informal and “based on word of mouth and personal connections”.
It said this breached the “principle of independence”.
But Moulder J said this was only material if there was “a real possibility of a lack of independence” on the part of the tribunal.
Manchester City “would have been aware” that these were senior commercial QC subject to professional obligations, she said.
“Accordingly in assessing whether an informed observer should give weight to the impact on the independence of the arbitrators of any perceived shortcomings in the process of appointment to the panel, an observer would consider the professional reputation and experience of the arbitrators in question and in my view would give weight to that factor in the circumstances of this case…
“In my view the club have not shown that notwithstanding the process adopted, there was a real possibility that the impartiality of these arbitrators has been compromised.”
The club also said members of the panel were appointed for only three years, putting them in a “subordinate position” and creating a “justifiable doubt” as to their impartiality.
The Premier League responded by arguing that the QCs were “very experienced practitioners and arbitrators with an impeccable reputation” and it was well established that “an apparent bias challenge against such experienced arbitrators is not one that is easy to establish”.
The Premier League said the argument that the silks might find for the Premier League “against the merits” presupposed that the value of being on the panel was “consciously or unconsciously perceived by them to be worth the candle of breaching professional obligations as lawyers and of risking one’s reputation and practice”.
Moulder J rejected the club’s argument that, on the facts of the case, the fair minded and informed observer would conclude that the methods of appointment and reappointment to the panel made the QCs “beholden” to the Premier League and so there was a real possibility of bias.
The judge said that, even if panel members were dependent for their appointment and reappointment on the Premier League board, it did not follow that this led to “a real possibility” of bias.
Moulder J also held that Manchester City had waived its right to object to the appointment process for arbitrators by signing up to the Premier League rules and approving them every year as a shareholder.

www.legalfutures.co.uk

QC arbitrators in Man City case were not “beholden” to Premier League

The High Court has rejected a claim by Manchester City football club that there was apparent bias on the part of three QCs sitting on a Premier League arbitration panel.
www.legalfutures.co.uk www.legalfutures.co.uk

I agree with the reader's comment below this article:

  • Readers Comments​

  • 166982de9c81eed597fee3b156bedc2e
    Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell says:
    August 11, 2021 at 4:54 pm
    Would it be better were the two disputing persons, the League and the Club in the instant case, each to choose their own arbitrator, preferably not from any any prescribed list? The two could then agree a third arbitrator (or possibly an Umpire); a truly neutral person, such as the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, might appoint the third if agreement fails. This case demonstrates why laymen think Judges and QCs are a cosy club. The Judges have the prospect of lucrative League arbitration in retirement.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Fantastic article by Martin Samuel in the Times.
He gets it.

The sky won’t fall in even if Manchester City win their court case

www.thetimes.co.uk

The sky won’t fall in even if Manchester City win their court case

The Premier League’s rules were always going to be challenged by one of the clubs they were designed to stop – but whatever the outcome football will continue
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk
Click to expand...
What I like most about this is that it has a "plague on all your houses" tone that I think is perfectly fair to have about City and the PL. But it doesn't cast City as the villains against a poor and timid PL.
 
" What will it take for City fans to accept Abu Dhabi's charmless reign is a terrible look for their club ? "

The latest piece from Herbert in the DM no doubt supported and paid for by the redshirt/spurs / yank owner alliance.

Herbert doing his level best to shift the emphasis from the real villains of the piece, ie the mardarse clubs who are losing out to City both financially and in sporting achievements.

Hurting ?
 
Last edited:
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.