I’m not missing any point, a poster asked if the PL actually won anything at all and the answer is yes.
You can claim the club didn’t have a problem with the original APT rules, that doesn’t change the fact they just spent a lot of time and money trying to get them thrown out, the rules were on the line and we were unsuccessful, which is a win for the PL.
It might not be something the club are devastated about, but it’s ridiculous to claim that winning an argument at arbitration isn’t a win when the consequences of losing would have been huge.
They’re entitled to celebrate that because they’d be absolutely fucked if we’d won.
That's not how either our statement nor even the PL one reads. The panel upheld the need for there to be rules, and the concept of the rules. But not the rules themselves, as I read it.
'The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness.' - City
'The Premier League welcomes the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system. The Tribunal upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective.' The PL.
The two are not mutually exclusive, and does read like the rules are the issue, rather than the idea of the rules.
Last edited: