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

[Grassland Blue]

All of this talk of us being cheats and financially doping, yet all the while we have teams disguising equity investment as interest-free loans that don't need to be repaid.

These 'interest free' loans to some P/L clubs.
Would that be apr or compound interest?

 

[mcfcphil]

The biggest positive we should take from the aggressiveness of City’s response - in particular the leaked email from Simon Cliff - is there is no way we would be going in this hard if we weren’t absolutely certain of winning the 115 case.

That’s the big story here imo.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

To be fair to him, He actually said it would be very difficult to prove with the limited info he had at the time. More info is now out but he didnt have access to that at the time of his original comments…

But Tolmie, The Times, and the Daily Mail called it correctly last month.

 

[Dribble]

So the long & short of it is (by my understanding) is, the PL brought in APT to stop sponsor companies associated to a clubs' owner, from agreeing inflated sponsorship deals as a way of getting money to the affected clubs through the back door. The thinking being this would unfairly distort the transfer market.

From City's viewpoint, we argued that the way APT's are judged is unlawful, because the PL adjudicate what they view as fair market value sponsorships, based on a database of previous sponsorship deals. HOWEVER, if a club disagrees with the PL's decision, they're NOT allowed access to the sponsorship database to challenge the decision.

On top of this, director loans aren't included in APT or PSR. Director loans currently held by Arsenal & others are interest free / very low interest, so City effectively argued why weren't these loans also considered to be a backdoor way of funding certain clubs. The independent review body found in our favour on these points.

It was also found that the amount of time the PL took to adjudicate against City regarding the Abu Dhabi bank & Etihad deals (2 & 3 months respectively) was unreasonably long, & found in City's favour in this respect.

City also alleged that these rules were created specifically to target owners from Gulf States, but the panel ruled in favour of the PL.

In terms of the legality of APT itself, the panel found it to have a legal basis, but with serious flaws with how it was constructed.

This is what's led to both sides claiming victory. APT remains, but must be amended so City & others can review the sponsorship database, & the PL must also include director loans in APT. OR the PL can scrap the lot & try coming at us with something else.

This is my short form understanding of the situation.

**UPDATE**​

"In an astonishing, unprecedented move which further underlines the civil war that has broken out in English football, the champions have accused league bosses of ‘misleading’ sides by providing ‘inaccuracies’.

In the message, seen by Mail Sport, City’s general counsel Simon Cliff says bluntly: ‘regrettably the (league’s) summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies’.

‘Of even greater concern,’ Cliff adds, ‘is the Premier League’s suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days.

'When the Premier League consulted on and proposed the original APT Rules in late 2021, we pointed out that the process (which took several weeks) was rushed, ill-thought-out and would result in rules that were anti-competitive. The recent Award has validated those concerns entirely.’

Cliff informs clubs that the panel found APT rules, aimed at preventing clubs from agreeing inflated deals with companies linked to their owners, unlawful and that, contrary to the top-flight’s comments, the decision renders all of the rules ‘null and void’."

Essentially, APT is legally unenforceable... Looks like the gloves are off! Lol :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...tml?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

 

[rabby]

Slamming Stefan is wrong, but pointing out that he wasn't right to be restrained or pessimistic about particular outcomes is perfectly legit.

If he understands what's really happening, then, maybe, he shouldn't be sitting on the fence.

Absolutely, Stefan's original stance was that we were highly unlikely to achieve any significant success, he's been proven wrong on this and there's no harm in him admitting this.
He did say that his opinion at the time was without knowing what city had to bolster their case,which to me suggest he should have sat on the fence then and came off it now.
Unfortunately he seems to have done things the other way round.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Right lads, here’s how you respond to the nonsense attempts to make this look like the prem had a win.

“That’s like saying City won the title but it doesn’t matter because a team beat them twice”

arsenal and liverpool style ha

 

[oakiecokie]

No offence oakie, but aren't you a bit long in the tooth to be having a sex change op ?

At my age I`ll take it any way I can. ;)

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

So basically the pl has been running an unlawful, deeply flawed and prejudiced business model for at least three years, even though they were warned of the consequences at the outset.

This needs a full independent investigation.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Same happened after the CAS hearing that cleared us. Media and opposition fans cherry picked the bits they liked and decided to ignore the final judgement. Oh and accuse the judges of taking bribes.

The PL version of events is what they want to hear. It comforts them.

They are all ignoring the Judgement just like they did at CAS. Totally bizarre. This is what happens in a post-truth society.

 

[thismeansfour]

To be fair to him, He actually said it would be very difficult to prove with the limited info he had at the time. More info is now out but he didnt have access to that at the time of his original comments…

So he could come out and say he was wrong and City have had a win here. Calling it a draw is absolute nonsense.