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

[eastmanc]

Hong Kong Phooey likes this post!

So politically incorrect but still brilliant. :-)

 

[Cobwebcat]

I'm having a go at answering the question, "Why do City say the Rules are void?"

Because that's what the law says. If the Rules are unlawful (for whatever reason) they are prohibited rules and any agreement, or decision of an association, including the prohibited Rules is thus void. [Competition Act 1988, s.2(4)]

I think I’m asking a different question in that case. I’m giving up now though. I remember Stephan put up a tweet on X answering what happens next? On that it clearly said that all the PL had to do was correct the existing rules with the judges amendments re shareholders. I’m guessing City don’t agree for the reason you state.

 

[KS55]

It's the arrogance of abusing your position being judge, jury & executioner. The way they had this stitched up, they didn't care what the "Gulf State Clubs" said or did about this obvious con.

The best bit is yet to come. The PL have to include all shareholder loans & make available this "mythical" historic sponsorship database that no one but the PL has seen or has access to, or scrap the fuckin lot. Either way, they've royally stiffed themselves.

The Martin Samuel article in The Times is particularly damning. He outlines how the PL highlighted APT issues with clubs & companies from the "Gulf States", but totally failed to mention American owned clubs & sponsors.

It's time to end this fuckin farce & bring in an independent regulator for English football (IREF).

Yep. The legislation is now urgent. Mr. Herbert, it is not City damaging the PL, it is the PL themselves for putting in place unlawful rules, despite the fact that we warned them at the time.

 

[hallsteve62]

These aren’t views and you claimed to have quoted me.

Anyway, we don’t agree on Covid because even United aren’t suggesting the £40m related to match day in 2021/22 because the stadia were open all season. 2021/22 Covid was different which is why a £40m claim when Arsenal disclosed £2m is interesting. But United have to look after themselves. It is for the PL to block exaggerated claims

Stefan, do you really believe that the PL would sanction United when they are supposed to have vetted Masters before he got the job?

 

[ancoats]

I'm having a go at answering the question, "Why do City say the Rules are void?"

Because that's what the law says. If the Rules are unlawful (for whatever reason) they are prohibited rules and any agreement, or decision of an association, including the prohibited Rules is thus void. [Competition Act 1988, s.2(4)]

If the court says the Premier League was wrong and unlawful in stopping Major Sponsorship Deals involving Manchester City then its rules are void, That is not just for Manchester City but for the rest of the Premier League clubs too,

I don't think it is any clearer and PSR AMF or what it is called can now longer be the rule and Stop Sponshirship deals

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Got to be better than being a Painter and Decorator.

That has more dignity and honesty imo than anything that **** has achieved in his miserable duplicitous life.

 

[SWP's back]

I can't believe my post has been interpreted that way. If a journalist has access to information from one side or the other, and from someone high up the food chain then that's a good source. I can't fathom how that can be interpreted any other way.

I'd argue for example that Delaney is in the same camp as Panja but he doesn't appear to have any sources, just opinions.

If we know the source will always give a one sided, often erroneous version of the events they wish to see take place then we know we can discount that source for its bias.

 

[Vic]

One lesson for us going forward is that if Masters and his cartel conspirators suggest another binding arbitration process instead of formal legal proceedings, we tell them to shove it. There is little point in an arbitration procedure if the losers misrepresent the result and fail to act in accordance with it.

It is my fervent hope that the Tribunal is just as offended, and says so - and adds exemplary damages to any compensation to City. "The primary intent of such damages is not to remunerate the injured party but rather to punish the defendant for their conduct and deter them, and others, from engaging in similar behaviour in the future."

 

[slbsn]

Question for @slbsn

If the Etihad deal is eventually given the green light after being initially refused what are City’s options given the tribunal stated it must be set aside due to procedural failings?

For example, let’s say it was a five-year deal due to start in the 24/25 season. Etihad may turn around and say they don’t want to commit to any sponsorship beyond the 28/29 season so it must now be a four-year deal starting in the 25/26 season.

Could City claim damages from the PL for the full Y1 value?

If ultimately approved, I think you would take the money received from EAG for the period (I assume we did agree a deal for 24/25 at an approved level leaving the remainder for confirmation so to mitigate any potential loss) and compare to what the deal as proposed originally was worth. Then the claim would consider the reasons for the loss (was it purely the unlawful rules causing the rejection for example) and, if causation was proved, then there would be an assessment of loss .

So, guessing, lets say the deal was £90m for 24/25 rising 8% pa for 10 years. And lets say, the PL said no, the FMV is £80m rising 5% for 10 years. City maybe decided that in 24/25 they would take the £80m and argue about the rest. This means if approved for the next 9 years during 24/25 on the original basis, City's maximum loss is £10m plus interest.

Ultimately, EAG are hardly likely to reject the possibility of a lower priced commercial deal because City have been capped out by the PL FMV calc.

 

[Bournemouth Blue]

With apologies to Monty Python, I haven’t signed up for this