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

[Coatigan]

Reading this thread is like being in the oasis ticket queue. I'm constantly behind butnif I try skip forward I could miss out altogether.

 

[OntarioBlue]

View attachment 134342
View attachment 134343

That’s a quality “don’t fuck with us” statement.

 

[toutmaster]

I know it’s the BBC but would this make a great panorama programme like they did with blatter expose each and every one them

 

[Mid Wales blue]

“UNLAWFUL. UNFAIR. UNREASONABLE.” would make a lovely banner if 1894 have got a bit of spare change…….just saying

I’m sure they could get an interest free loan off a stakeholder :-p

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I don’t think so.

However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".

He added: "We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.

"Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator."

Cliff's letter will also increase speculation that City may take further legal action to claim compensation for any losses they argue they have suffered as a result of the rules.

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.

www.bbc.co.uk

I think this is a clear indication that City have no intention of letting any of this fizzle out. City have been shown to be right to have taken the action they did and no spin by the PL is going to be allowed to mask that fact. The sentence you have put in bold print is a clear warning to clubs that they had better not go along with some face saving, botched balls up by the PL to enact pretty much the same regulations again so that PL executives can stay in place and Arsenal officials won't cry. We want damages for lost revenue and we want the regulations to be lawful and fair. City won, the PL lost (heavily), they're rattled and they should be, and they are not fit to run football. I have to disagree with Stefan that this case was like the Leicester case and that City won because of the wording of the regulations. This time the regulations have to be right or there'll be real trouble.

 

[bladdered]

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

silly remarks don't help intelligent debate.

It was a serious remark. Some of the guys attacking slbn need their heads checking, or to go back to the lfc and utd forums, I didn't know which tbh, but I certainly would have thought they would know his history on here during these cases...

When the only voice City fans could hear was the media, slbn provided some clarity (as well as a few others tbf). When the only thing on talksport that City fans could here was how guilty we were slbn provided a balanced pov.

This load of twats now attacking him for seemingly being wrong, shill, a patsy, mealy mouthed... what have they done? Day back and fine fuck all. Except jealously moan at someone who just knows more than them. That's it, just childish jealousy.

 

[SK6Expat]

In terms of what City could be going after in damages there's potentially the two mentioned deals from this year, are there others that have been blocked or forced to be reduced since the illegal rules were introduced in 2021?

 

[Vic]

Does this explain why all the Rules are void?

The judgment says the Rules and the Amended Rules are "in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998"

Section 2 of the Act:

Agreements etc. preventing, restricting or distorting competition.​

(1)Subject to section 3, agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices which—
(a)may affect trade within the United Kingdom, and
(b)have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom,
are prohibited unless they are exempt in accordance with the provisions of this Part.

(2)Subsection (1) applies, in particular, to agreements, decisions or practices which—
(a)directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b)limit or control production, markets, technical development or investment;
(c)share markets or sources of supply;
(d)apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e)make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

(3)Subsection (1) applies only if the agreement, decision or practice is, or is intended to be, implemented in the United Kingdom.

(4)Any agreement or decision which is prohibited by subsection (1) is void.


So - City have shown that the Rules offend subsection 1 so the agreement is unlawful and prohibited (not just individual rules) and (subsection 4) if the agreement is prohibited it is void (the whole agreement - or the "decisions by associations of undertakings" if the Rules do not constitute an agreement).

The section means that anyone can take action against an "association" and argue that it's a competition-stopping cartel. In this case, one member of the association has done it!

Section 18 prohibits abuse of a dominant position.

 

[Uwe`s Grandad]