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

[kaz7]

Fucking hell lads , we inflicted a real wound in to the pl, let me enjoy it !

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Great post. I'm really at a loss to understand how the PL can hope to use a simple database to regulate sponsorship values.

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. And if it's a B2C brand, the sponsorship will potentially have more of an impact than if it's a brand like United's last 2 sponsors, Team Viewer or Qualcomm.

I could potentially understand Team Viewer, who are primarily a B2B brand, trying to build brand awareness but what's in it for Qualcomm?

But I'm not sure I share your confidence that a government regulator could do a better job.

Regarding gov regulator, I did say “a chance” …but I’m not confident either !

 

[Cobwebcat]

See my post yesterday

Thanks Vic but it says….

“that the APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 because they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and for no other reason;”

That says to me that if the shareholder loans area is corrected then it becomes lawful as they state that is the only reason?

 

[SWP's back]

There is no question that Cliff has a better understanding of the case than me. By a mile. And obviously so. Likewise, he has the benefit of 2 weeks ruminating on the judgment, hours and hours of legal advice on the matter from Pannick and the rest of the team inc Freshfields.

But as I explained yesterday, these sort of letters and bombastic positions are common in litigation. It doesn't mean City are certain on all these points. In fact, the most critical element of the letter is that City and the PL have agreed in correspondence that matters will need to go back to the Tribunal - that appears to be factual.

All of that said you are comparing apples and oranges. I was being asked my objective view as to who won what. Simon Cliff is the GC of one of the parties charged with a) implementing a new regime b) concurrently defending the club vs the most serious allegations imaginable c) portraying confidence in the club's position. He is not trying to be objective.

As for the attack on my reputation? I doubt you have any clue whatsoever on that topic.

There was no attack on your reputation Stefan. You’re very highly regarded. Saying I believe Margot Robbie to be prettier than Keira Knightly doesn’t mean Knightly is a moose.

 

[Jogon 127]

But we don't know this yet, hence the need for patience. It is City's opinion that the APT rules for now are null. It is the PLs opinion that they aren't. It's the legal industry's opinion that we don't know yet and it depends but it seems on the face of things that it's possible to alter the specific clauses which means the rest of the rules are enforceable.

This seems to be the primary argument after the case and it's too early to plant flags and talk in the definitives.

To use an analogy if you've got a piece of government legislation, let's say the Data Protection Act, and one of the clauses in the law is challenged as being discriminatory in some way, you don't just throw out the entire piece of legislation and say the DPA doesn't exist at the moment. You just change that clause but the Act is still in practice and enforced. It's not exactly the same situation but it's not a million miles off.

The argument here is whether the judgment claims that the things that need changing are so baked into the whole set of rules that there's no way to amend them without wholesale redrafting. On the points that we've won on, it doesn't appear to be enough on the face of things.with my very limited knowledge if the judges agree that parts are unlawful I’m confident

But we don't know this yet, hence the need for patience. It is City's opinion that the APT rules for now are null. It is the PLs opinion that they aren't. It's the legal industry's opinion that we don't know yet and it depends but it seems on the face of things that it's possible to alter the specific clauses which means the rest of the rules are enforceable.

This seems to be the primary argument after the case and it's too early to plant flags and talk in the definitives.

To use an analogy if you've got a piece of government legislation, let's say the Data Protection Act, and one of the clauses in the law is challenged as being discriminatory in some way, you don't just throw out the entire piece of legislation and say the DPA doesn't exist at the moment. You just change that clause but the Act is still in practice and enforced. It's not exactly the same situation but it's not a million miles off.

The argument here is whether the judgment claims that the things that need changing are so baked into the whole set of rules that there's no way to amend them without wholesale redrafting. On the points that we've won on, it doesn't appear to be enough on the face of things.

As the judges have ruled that parts of APT are unlawful, the protocol from a legal perspective would normally be that the PL would have to revert back to the rules prior to what was in place before APT was added.

This is probably why we are claiming 2021 as a date to revert back to.

Makes total sense, and the damages award post 2021 could MONUMENTAL and CATASTROPHIC for PL.

 

[sir baconface]

It depends on funding obviously. But I struggle to see how it could do any worse. The entire implementation of PSR has been a shitshow from beginning to end. It's stupid strategically in terms of refusing investment in the league, it has ruined the PL's brand worldwide by accusing several of its clubs of cheating, and it has showed the utter incompetence of the PL when it comes to their ability to draft rules compatible with UK competition and public law.

Every single step they have taken on this issue has been a misstep of some kind, and the more these leaks come out like what happened in the APT case with Newcastle, the more you can plainly see that the Premier League are attempting to manage the fortunes of their most powerful clubs at the expense of others. The way they attempted to (and arguably did) directly target and fuck over Newcastle should be the story coming out of this whole mess. That's cheating. It is blatant, premeditated, unadulterated cheating that has been shown to exist in a legal arena. It's not a conspiracy theory. This isn't like us or United or someone cheating, this is the actual regulator themselves.

The PL cannot be trusted to regulate itself and while the grass may not be greener, it is worth a go because what we have now is corrupt.

It might be greener if we hadn’t seen so many examples of shit regulation and government incompetence.

 

[GSW Blue]

As Etihad are now inextricably linked with City it would be difficult for them to retain credibility through sponsorship of any other PL club. Therefore the value to them of continuation of the City deal is more than any value they would get from ditching City and sponsoring Arsenal for example.

Any value of future sponsorship will clearly be unique to the specific circumstances meaning any attempt at benchmarking for fair market value will be futile.

If the sponsor can afford it then it ticks the box for me!

 

[nijinsky69]

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?

Void or void ab initio? City appear to be suggesting it is the latter but the tribunal needs to rule
on this point.

 

[Rammy Blue]

LOL. But that's a good point as Chevrolet (who were the company that were on their shirt) withdrew from the European market during that deal, so surely that impacted the value?

And there was the issue that the guy who negotiated that deal on behalf of GM was sacked for exceeding his authority. Would the PL have taken account of that in their assessment of FMV?

And then there was the Liverpool kit deal with Warrior, who were (a) a new entrant into the football kit business, and (b) loosely connected to John Henry and FSG. Adidas said that the deal Warrior offered was well above what it was worth to them. What would the PL have made of that?

I think you know the answers to those questions, mate.

“Play in red?” Tick.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Lol in fairness thats the benefit of an online publication, it can be ammended when needed.

I know it was ammended, because originally that sentence clearly stood out to me like a sore thumb when I first read it.

I guess the ammendment kind of ties into his sources who appear to have links with the PL.

Same on here when you can amend the spelling of amendment. :-)