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

[Oldham Exile]

Interesting tweet from Stefan re the APT case - doesn't think we'll be successful

Really informative read that - and, unfortunately, explains well the challenge that CITY would have had in 'winning the day'.

Particularly unlucky that the same person chaired our case as chaired the Saracen's one and that there are such clear parallels for that chair to draw on - precedents that he made. Or were there not other options?

Doesn't promote confidence in a positive outcome and (if we are unsuccessful) when the announcement is made there will be 100s more tweets etc. jumping on an anti-CITY bandwagon. The messages will all be about us failing and 'being guilty' - even though we cannot be 'guilty' as we brought the case

 

[Newman Noggs]

Particularly unlucky that the same person chaired our case as chaired the Saracen's one and that there are such clear parallels for that chair to draw on - precedents that he made.

Only time will tell but I'm not sure about that. Our representatives will have long been aware of the Saracens decision and will be ensuring that any relevant distinctions between the two cases are drawn out. Someone who made the original decision is most likely to appreciate and apply weight to those distinctions imo.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

No 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.

And the PL already had rules in place to examine new commercial contracts above £1m, as well as the long-standing rules on related parties that exist in accounting and reporting standards.

My understanding is we brought this case after the APT rules were used to deny us specific income streams, which seems to be a somewhat different argument than Saracens were making about salary caps.

 

[M18CTID]

Interesting tweet from Stefan re the APT case - doesn't think we'll be successful

It is interesting and a very good, informative, read but for the reasons that @halfcenturyup stated, I don’t think the 2 cases are a like-for-like comparison so that’s why I’m led to believe that City will - as the likes of Ziegler are reporting - have had “some success”

 

[117 M34]

And the PL already had rules in place to examine new commercial contracts above £1m, as well as the long-standing rules on related parties that exist in accounting and reporting standards.

And my understanding is we brought this case after the APT rules were used to deny us specific income streams, which seems to be a somewhat different argument than Saracens were making about salary caps.

Coudl the PL just argue that if they stop us increasing the etihad sponsorship, we could just use the next highest bidder which should be pretty close to what etihad are offering and of it's not then the etihad deal is inflated?
Possibility of shooting ourselves in the foot?

 

[Vic]

Interesting tweet from Stefan re the APT case - doesn't think we'll be successful

So who chose Lord Dyson to preside on the case?

 

[halfcenturyup]

So who chose Lord Dyson to preside on the case?

Rosen clearly, I would imagine it was a no-brainer in view of his experience. I also imagine both Dyson and our counsel are more than able to distinguish between the two cases

 

[JASR]

So who chose Lord Dyson to preside on the case?

Means it’s not swept under the carpet

 

[halfcenturyup]

Means it’s not swept under the carpet

Trying to stop us hoovering up all the trophies.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

So who chose Lord Dyson to preside on the case?

yeah - that sucks!