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

[halfcenturyup]

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.

That's what I thought. Not sure how that tallies with the requirement to make decisions quickly, though, bearing in mind the new rules may take a while....

 

[SSL2]

I repost lots of tweets I don't agree too.

Stefan has a platform of 40k followers, so his explanation is kind of justifiable.

Would love to know what your reason is?

 

[GSW Blue]

so which bit did Simon Cliff get wrong then?

Exactly. They are chancers thrashing about on behalf of those who put them in their now untenable position!

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

First of all we are a key member of this PL so the City's desire for change is to be considered against that backdrop. Second, the "enemies" in the room haven't changed - they will be the parties voting on new rules. Third it is clear the tree is standing on PSR, FMV and APT (of some sort). There is simply no basis to think the clubs will agree no regulation and nor would we want that. We are at the top table.

So we are fighting around the edges by definition and assisted by law which is inherently uncertain on complex and evolving areas of sport and competition law and the interaction. Even if the PL no longer existed, do you really think the Super League teams would not largely replicate the UEFA and or the PL regime on financial restrictions? Of course they would. City most likely want a wholesale change of the leadership of the PL - that is understandable given the allegations made against them but we are still part of this family and all successes in cases like this have to be contextualised in the sense that we need the PL to succeed for our own success.

A law which is inherently uncertain , but which the tribunal panel still found clear breaches of in the PL rules. It seems they didn't find it that uncertain?

The enemies in the room may still be there, but the ruling has made it 100% clear to them and their stooge Masters that they cannot enact rules that are illegal and favour them.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Or they want a post that they can read in 10 seconds and which supports their view.....

Yeah well, as I've just demonstrated, you won't find such a post coming from me :) everything I write on the matter tends to be just a hair short of a Tolstoy novel.

 

[Phil1]

Exactly this.
He’s a fraud not a friend. Not even a transparent objective one at that.
It’s all about self serving exposure for him.
His stance after this current ruling is pathetic.
Unlawful rules that have to be thrown out of the cartel’s playbook.APT rules deemed null and void in their current guise with the PL scurrying to have them re written
Our lucrative sponsorships rejected, twice, due to these unlawful rules, possibly leaving the PL exposed to an expensive claim.
Not to mention the loans clubs give themselves being highlighted and told they can’t continue and the effect it has on our opponents.
If those things alone aren’t a win then WTF is. Certainly not a 1-1 draw in my eyes.
You only need to read our letter to other clubs to get the picture, but of course Stefan plays that down as well, saying “well, it’s just what lawyers do in such disputes”..Ior words to that effect. I don’t think so, not so common and to this extent. We wouldn’t write that letter unless we came from a position of strength.
Frankly, I had my doubts about him and his motives but after this he has zero credibility for me.
And he should stop people referring to his previous involvement with club. He feeds off it and he does us no favours.

Go and have a lie down.
He may be a lot of things (I don’t know him so can’t really say) but he isn’t a fraud. He talks honestly and from a purely professional viewpoint which means his words are chosen carefully.
As blues we would love for him to say we have smashed the cartel but the reality is he doesn’t think those things are true.
We all need to remain grounded because the next few months are going to be seismic in the history of our great club.

 

[Joe Donachie]

I am sat pondering now as to who the premier league are gonna hire to do there pruning??

I got a mate who works for greenfingers in Cheshire if there interested,

 

[TedofChume]

I'd answer that the odd appearance on Talksport is incredibly unlikely to outweigh the high credibility and career opportunities he'd get from retaining his credibility as a legal counsel and football finance expert by outlining opinions as he sees them based on his years of experience and access to facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. However they aren't entitled to their own facts. I'd trust someone like Stefan to interpret these far better than most, and certainly far better than most posters here, myself included.

However what do I know, I'm just an Arsenal fan!

To be honest whilst it's nice that Stefan Borson provides some kick back, he really does waffle and come out with some mealy mouthed drivel at times.

At the end of the day, we were told by Platini that the whole purpose of FFP was to stop owners pumping too much money into their clubs, to try to make the game more sustainable. The PSR rules are supposed to be a more lenient/watered down version of the same, as the allowable losses are higher.

However FFP insists owner loans have interest allocated at a FMV rate and PSR doesn't (or didn't).

Judging by the Premier League's stance on this point and losing in court on it, if Mansour had simply leant City £1.5Billion at 0% then they wouldn't be pursuing City for breaching PSR... dream on.....

The Premier League have been proven by this judgement and their immediate response to be completely corrupt and disingenuous.

These hefty preferential loans at clubs like Arsenal and Liverpool have been around for over 15 years, deliberately circumventing PSR. How can they write off historical issues of interest free orclow interest loans?

I've actually calculated Liverpool's 2010 0.5% £240m loan would now stand at £735m if an FMV interest rate of 8% had been applied. They would never have had the money to buy Mo Salah, let alone Van Dijk. Alisson, Fabhino and Keita. They wouldn't have won anything at all under Klopp.

Arsenal have spent way above their means over the last 8 years using this same mechanism, to build the side they have today.

When the PSR rules were written, I find it hard to believe high quality law firms were not involved because of the sums of money at stake. These firms will have provided sound legal advice as to the legality of this issue, and almost certainly advised against it. You'd have to assume they deliberately ignored it at the behest of Arsenal, Liverpool and United to give them a loophole whilst they try to "get City"

City have had two sponsorship deals stopped this year under the APT rules that have just been found unlawful and can claim compensation. I have no idea how much they're for, but axtypical deal of £20m over 5 years is £100m. So this alone could be considerable.

Yesterday the Daily Mail, when covering this story, suggested many smaller Premier League clubs had been trying to get the Premier League to drop the PSR case against City, and settle for damages out of court.

It is now very clear to me, City are going to win their PSR case either at arbitration or on appeal in a court of law. The legal costs and compensation are going to hit £1Billion or thereabouts for this whole affair.

On the one hand, we want our club vindicated and cleared, but we don't want to destroy competitive football and the Premier League.

This is why our owners are pushing for a football regulator.

I'd love to see the Glazers. Kroenke, FSG, Joe Lewis and Boehly booted out of football for good.

I wish Stefan Borson would show more balls.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Samuel has no legal training and Cliff's job is to protect City at all costs. They are not good sources.

I think that’s slightly wide of the mark about Cliff. Firstly he will be professionally precluded from winning at all costs. Secondly the letter that was sent out was extremely strident of itself and even more so by way of its contents. Thirdly he will have been acting on instructions to do so, that will have been given following advice from others, including no doubt, Pannick.

This is a huge departure from the earlier press release and should be viewed accordingly.

It’s also worth pointing out the poor track record of the legal advice the PL has been in receipt of, which should colour anyone’s views on the relative quality of City’s.

 

[johnny crossan]

Samuel has no legal training and Cliff's job is to protect City at all costs. They are not good sources.

So if Samuel had the same training as GDM he'd be kosher and Cliff isn't representing the advice of our entire legal team? I know you feel the need to line up with the forum admin to support Stefan but really.