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

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

I think upon a little reflection the extent of City’s victory depends on the club’s objectives. If it was to destroy APT (which I highly doubt) then it’s correct to say it’s somewhat limited, although still material. If it was to recalibrate the rules (which I expect it was) then the success would have to be, at the very least, characterised as highly successful.

However, what cannot be open to debate is the extent of the PL’s defeat. A de facto public authority having a finding that its rules were unlawful, as was the way they were applied, is huge. As are the findings of procedural irregularity and unfairness.

To fail to understand this is to fail to appreciate the function of an authority such as this, the laws of natural justice and the burden and standard of proof required to establish such findings.

This following from the Leicester shambles further underlines this organisation is not even close to being fit to oversee a multi-billion pound industry that has attained huge strategic and commercial importance to the UK.

That should be the story, but instead all we have is mental gymnastics from the media about how neither side won - when one of them manifestly lost.

As I'm trying to be cool headed and rational about this I'd describe the PL as runners up or second winners....

 

[johnny crossan]

Let them report who pays compensation to who. That'll show the real winner.

Published
16 September

Could Man City claim damages?
Simon Stone, BBC Sport chief football news reporter
Manchester City could be eligible to claim for damages on earnings lost as a result of the tribunal's findings.
On page 163, it outlines 'declaratory relief, injunctive relief and damages' can be sought.
This, potentially is a financial problem for the Premier League depending on whether City pursue a claim – which they have indicated they will - and what the size of it is.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

As I'm trying to be cool headed and rational about this I'd describe the PL as runners up or second winners....

So Liverpool under Klopp, then?

 

[Bluewonder]

Yeah but it isn't retrospectively applied. So they'll have to factor in an extra £20m for the loans or so however in reality what you'll see is a massive Walmart sponsorship deal at whatever value the Kroenkes can get away with so I don't think it affects Arsenal in reality as that will just replace the shareholder loans. It's the same money basically.

Smaller clubs without super wealthy owners who own other massive companies may feel it more though.

The Premier League has been retrospectively applying rules in the form of City's sanctions for 18 months now.

Why shouldn't they do the same against Arsenal?

 

[terraloon]

If seven clubs vote down any changes, what do the PL do?

Remember, the question was why Everton and Chelsea would vote with City now, if they are going to be hurt by interest on their loans.

What they do is vote down any rule including shareholder loans in APT. The PL can't make the rules "legal" without a 2/3 majority so they would have to scrap APT rules in their entirety or run with rules found to be anti-competitive. Bye bye APT.

Tyranny of the minority.

As I say I don’t think 7 clubs will vote the PL down indeed the panel’s verdict probably gives the PL a clear line of sight in terms of how an independent panel will view matters going forward
I don’t like using the phrase red herrings in relation to owners loans but sorry I think this is being a little overstated in terms of this aspect of the ruling. One way or another the owners will work round this my guess re Chelsea this was as much to do with their plans going forward in terms of associated sponsorship or more likely something to do with the multi club plans concerns re a sum is nothing more than a sum that will increase the costs for PSR but simply won’t see the owners receiving any income

 

[schfc6]

Devil’s advocate, can anyone explain where exactly the Prem have won on anything significant?

As far as I see it, the rules we didn’t challenge haven’t changed.
The arbitrator said there is a need for some sort RP restrictions. Which is something we haven’t challenged.

 

[surrounded by idiots]

it extends the unbeaten run at the start of the season

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

So Liverpool under Klopp, then?

Exactly

 

[BusterPhillips]

As someone who is just catching up..

Am I correct to summarise - that the APT rules need to be voted back through (with a majority) to be legally implemented, but in doing so they have to include share holder loans?

If so the 9 clubs with shareholders loans will likely be reassessed? So basically this won't be voted back in, unless there is an agreement that prior loans are excluded?

 

[HelloCity]

Yes but it will be applied differently by the Panel as there won't be any time-barring in place.

It’s clear you know absolutely nothing about the case and are basing your views on social media comments and red top commentary.

Maybe you should stick to the latte army thread for your shitty little club in the general football forum?