I am sorry but I don't see how in anyway this can be seen as a win for the PL.
The PL bring in APR rules.
City challenge them and the panel finds that the way the PL have implemented them to be illegal.
That's it end of! the word Illegal should end any discussion.
They now have to rewrite the rules. Which will have major implications for several clubs.
How is that in anyway a PL win?
It's not!
I may have this wrong, but I didn't think the disputed sponsorships had been reinstated as such, just that the previous decisions regarding them had been set aside as procedurally unfair. They still need to be approved I think.I'd argue that it was one 'relatively minor detail' given the panel's summary. Yes, the overriding principal that the concept APT rules were not intrinsically unlawful was upheld (and I can't work out if we tried to claim that) but they'll have to change the rules as they stand, as you said.
We got two disputed sponsorships reinstated at levels that were presumably closer to our valuation, which is probably a large part of why we brought this action.
Also, while our challenges were dismissed on a number of points, many of those were around those two sponsorship deals. So the PL 'won' on those points but it was a pyrrhic victory as we won the 'war' with the sponsorships reinstated.
He said she said. It doesn’t matter. He wasn’t totally right or wrong. Everyone asks him to guess so he puts forward an opinion and you nail him for it? Give it a rest.Or he could just accept he's someone who called it wrong initially but hasn't the cojones to accept that and move on.
Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.
Does "set aside" (the quote on the 2 sponsorship deals in the judgement) mean re-instated or that the previous rulings should be set aside and they are reassessed?I'd argue that it was one 'relatively minor detail' given the panel's summary. Yes, the overriding principal that the concept APT rules were not intrinsically unlawful was upheld (and I can't work out if we tried to claim that) but they'll have to change the rules as they stand, as you said.
We got two disputed sponsorships reinstated at levels that were presumably closer to our valuation, which is probably a large part of why we brought this action.
Also, while our challenges were dismissed on a number of points, many of those were around those two sponsorship deals. So the PL 'won' on those points but it was a pyrrhic victory as we won the 'war' with the sponsorships reinstated.
I was just about to comment similar to @Ric .
Stefan has to use the judgement to make a professional opinion. From the publicly available information it would be quite easy to build a narrative of a win for either side, it does depend on the lens and which points you deem more important. If you look around, many lawyers have been cautious to lean either way.
City will say 'we won the most important arguments which now allow us to put sponsorships through, see FMV judgements and seek compensation'.
The PL will say 'we managed to defend the majority of the legal arguments, clubs will still need APT approval prior to the deal taking place etc...'.
This City letter sent out isn't public, so impossible for Stefan to add that to the equation, especially when it was barely known about when he jumped on TS this morning. He has to use the facts available, his reputation depends on it.
For example, the Chelsea situation, he wasn't to know that the PL's rules were so poorly drafted that they were essentially allowed to sell a hotel to themselves. (If you read this Stefan, I'm aware that the process was more complex than that and perplexing that it took them so long to ratify the deal).
He technically did say on TS a score draw, maybe slightly in City's favour.
Personally I'd lean towards City getting the more favourable decision as they've managed to show the PL acting improper which may help us in the short and long term. I think we got the key areas ruled for us which is what we wanted, the rest may have been a smokescreen to keep the PL busy. However, I can fully understand somebody saying it wasn't a perfect judgement for either party as we don't know that for sure.
City going strong with the letter suggests they believe the PL are well out of line but again they have more information than us. It is promising that the club have reacted this way.
It's not rocket science despite some on here believing the PL spin.Who won? I have been asked at least 6 times today. Purely because the Premier League played it down as a small matter of incorrect rules that can easily be rectified.
My answer was make your own mind up. City can claim compensation for millions. The Premier League have to change their rules as they have been declared illegal. Clubs have to pay interest on loans designed to give them a competitive advantage aka cheating. I KNOW who won!
Thank you, that's what I thought but then suddenly doubted myself after seeing Prestwich Blue's post.I may have this wrong, but I didn't think the disputed sponsorships had been reinstated as such, just that the previous decisions regarding them had been set aside as procedurally unfair. They still need to be approved I think.
Agree with this. Stefan is not an oracle, nobody is, or can be when dealing with the Prem and their continual refreshing of their creaking law book. Don’t force him off the forum with criticism. For sure point out where you disagree but I’ve listened twice to the TS interview and personally think it’s balanced and fair. If Stefan got his predictions wrong in places or is suggesting that it’s not a complete win that’s fine. He’s probably right.Some of the stick Stefan gets is a bit unnecessary. He's asked to give his professional opinion on these matters, and doesn't deserve grief just because it's perhaps not what people want to hear! It's fine to disagree with him, forums are all about debate, but should at least be courteous.
This is REALLY important to you isn't it.Or he could just accept he's someone who called it wrong initially but hasn't the cojones to accept that and move on.