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

[meltonblue]

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.

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment of that, personally I think they had to do something after the Newcastle deal went through. Shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place.

 

[Paladin]

And then when the rules are found to breach competition law - the PL deny it, seek to paper over the cracks, steadfastly refuse to retrospectively address their error re Director’s loans and simply allow Arsenal to redraft the rules. Why can no one in the media see that the PL are no better an organisation than the Post Office.

Not sure if @tolmie's hairdoo's comments about Arsenal drafting the rules referred to the 2021 version, the 2024 amendments, or the redraft required now. I assumed the earlier versions, since they were drawn up to exclude themselves from paying interest on the loans.

 

[west didsblue]

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?

There are also two other clauses that say they are unlawful:

“(i) 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;
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason;
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;”

The “and for no other reason” statement must be legalese because it gives two other reasons.

 

[hello]

My understanding is that all current and past APT rules are void because they do not include the shareholder exemption. This presumably means you need to draft fresh rules to include this exemption.

The principle of APT is not unlawful, but the rules as drafted are. The new rules cannot be drawn up on the back of a fag packet like last time. They need to be properly thought out and stress tested otherwise they will be open to fresh legal challenge.

In this context City are correct. This is not a quick fix or technical tweaks. Similarly, the procedures for implementing APT rules have to be transparent, fair and even handed going forward. This is will also take time and require more resource from the PL.

tbf everyone knows they were actually drawn up on a napkin at the famous restaurant meeting of red shite owners as opposed to a fag packet, but the rest is spot on although maybe just maybe this time when the premier leagues legal counsel advises them it might not be lawful the premier league might actually listen?

 

[mattcity5]

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment of that, personally I think they had to do something after the Newcastle deal went through. Shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place.

On what basis?

 

[Vic]

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 exiting rules with the judges amendments re shareholders. I’m guessing City don’t agree for the reason you state.

Even if that were so, the PL has to get a majority vote for new Rules. (Do they need 14 votes?)

I imagine a backroom conversation, whereby City say they will support new rules that suit them - in exchange for not seeking compensation for the damage caused to City by the PL's application of unlawful rules.

 

[jaiguruKun]

There are also two other clauses that say they are unlawful:

“(i) 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;
(ii) that the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being in breach of sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998 as they exclude from their scope shareholder loans and because of the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules and for no other reason;
(iii) that APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules are unlawful on account of being procedurally unfair because a club is unable to comment upon the comparable transaction data relied upon by the PL before the PL determines whether a transaction is not at FMV and for no other reason;”

The “and for no other reason” statement must be legalese because it gives two other reasons.

(i) refers to APT rules in their original form
(ii) & (iii) refer to the amended APT rules (i.e. after the changes were made following the Newcastle takeover).

 

[KS55]

I'm not reading that. It's clearly very silly.

I would like to send him this though.

Who is he?

 

[domalino]

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.

I know you're being asked 1000 questions every time you pop into the thread, but is the second half of the hearing for damages/injunctive relief etc. already going on? Scheduled? Or is it just something that might happen in the future?

 

[meltonblue]

On what basis?

That they’re owned by PIF.