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

[Vic]

....
A company that's less well known in Western Europe (or other regions) and wants to build brand awareness in those regions, will presumably be happy to pay more for that than a company with a existing presence....

Steady on, that's almost justifying the Rags' deal with Chrysler!

 

[meltonblue]

The rules of the fmv assessment are going to have to be changed for the "pricing" issues found unlawful by the tribunal. So the burden of proof will now be on the PL and with a clearly apparent ("evident") margin of error. Pretty sure those change the whole ball game.

The FAB one predates the pricing changes though. Less sure about the Etihad one.

 

[meltonblue]

If they don't it seems to me they will get in trouble with clubs who have suffered a financial loss from the unlawful rules since 2021 by, for example, not giving points deductions (and affecting table positions) for resulting FFP breaches.

Tangled webs and all that.

Exactly.

 

[mrbelfry]

Is it fair to say that, in the history of FFP, there has been no sponsorship which anyone ever said is evidently over fair market value to any material degree? I mean evidently.

I suppose the closest may have been the original Etihad contract, but that was proven to be fair in short order.

Maybe the Qatar tourism one with PSG?

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

I agree with much of what you’ve posted here, and certainly (and I’ve previously posted in these terms) it’s difficult to know how successful City have been in terms of this action per se, without knowing what the objectives were.

However, from a strategic point of view I disagree about the implications of this, at least as things presently appear. If our long term strategic aim is to (further) discredit the regulatory body that oversee the club, because they have been acting against it in bad faith, then I would say there are many reasons to believe this has succeeded. Following from the Leicester debacle, it underlines the fact that this is an organisation that isn’t fit for purpose because it is grossly incompetent and/or acting in ways that are improper.

I disagree with the analysis of others because in my view (fwiw) you cannot dress up a finding of unlawfulness in relation to an organisation’s own rules in any way other than hugely significant. They have, once again, wholly misconceived rules which they have constructed and have custody of, which they impose upon other organisations; rules that have been found to be unlawful in ways that are significant. These rules are not some abstract small print, they are front and centre to the way the league is governed. I’m struggling to see how anyone can not see the significance of this, especially placed alongside the misinterpretation of Leicester’s status with those same rules.

I take on board what you say about counselling against a scorched earth policy (in the club’s best interests) but that has to be weighed against the many inferences of the conduct of the PL towards the club. I feel the club is well placed to evaluate this and act accordingly. The unusual existence and robust tone of Cliff’s letter suggests they have done this. They may have done so reluctantly, but out of a sense of necessity.

I have always been confident throughout the last eighteen months that the club’s judgement (correct spelling in this instance!) should be trusted. Moreover, the club wouldn’t have embarked in this course of action, nor sent the letter out, if it felt the associated gains would be nugatory, or even marginal. As that time has passed, it has become increasingly clear (to me at least) that the PL’s judgement, and the advice it has been receiving, has been severely lacking. That is also a material factor when evaluating what the judgment means.

Against all that, I feel that the club wouldn’t have responded in the way it did if it wasn’t supremely confident of the ground it was standing on, or the wider aims of the action, and if I was going to back any particular horse in this race it wouldn’t be the PL.

I therefore feel that the outcome of this action is far more positive than others have posited.

Whether I’m right or not, only time will tell.

And I agree with you that virtually all sports journalists are know nowt cunts :-)

You've sold it to me, you smooth talking bastard.

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner

 

[halfcenturyup]

The FAB one predates the pricing changes though. Less sure about the Etihad one.

New assessment, new rules. Or, I suppose, no rules :)

 

[mcfcphil]

So you did not have to backtrack on your quotes about United's £75 million PSR fudge with Covid-19 and Jim's shares fees, Funny I thought you said on the show a couple of days later United had complained to the show about how I was putting it across that they cheated PSR,

Again I quote.

Then you said that United did not break any rules in doing this, but other clubs also did the same but were not allowed to add so many COVID-19 allowances because of lost match-day revenue. You then added that Arsenal has around 60,000 at the Emirates, and they could only add around a couple of million in allowances.

Cheating is cheating in any book and when you control others' spending allowances you can declare and then allow United to Fudge or Cheat PSR is OK

Depressingly predictable that slbsn was eventually going to become a target for nonsense like this.

Not sure if it’s jealousy, paranoia or people are just completely consumed by anger over the 115.

Whatever it is, it’s incredibly irritating and ruins the forum.

 

[sir baconface]

I don’t think we will complete the deals till
the new APT rules are in place or APT is abolished

My reading is the APT rules are void and will remain so until amended. Doesn’t this therefore present a window of opportunity to complete those deals?

 

[Vic]

This is the bit I don’t get (the last two paragraphs in the second link) and I suspect most don’t either.

It pains me to say it but my take was the same as the PL on this point. I was surprised to see City had interpreted it as the whole thing is null and void.

@slbsn Any ideas?

I can only think that City are seeing this as an opportunity to strike a blow rather than follow the precise guidance as the judges seem to be saying sort out the errors and the rest is OK.

See my post yesterday

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.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe the Qatar tourism one with PSG?

Well yes, what a mess that was. But I was talking PL. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut out of fear (being kind) or by placing impossible requirements in the way (to be more realistic).

It's all so unnecessary.