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

Chris in London said:
Having (finally) had time to read and (partially) digest the judgment, here are my thoughts for what they are worth.

First, I sort of get why the PL took the stance they did, and why some posters and commentators have called it something of a score draw. The bottom line is, if you strip it down and say 'how many of the individual battles did City win, and how many did they lose' the answer is the PL won something like 15-5. So I don't find it surprising that the PL have spun it the way they have, and there is a degree of justification there.

To decide whether a lawsuits has been, basically, either been successful or not, however - whether MCFC 'won' or lost' - it is important to understand what were the objectives of each party.

City's objective is stated in the decision at paragraph 4. City sought a declaration that the rules concerning APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded.

The PL's objective was plainly to uphold their rules and to uphold the two decisions that City challenged.

Then you can look at the final summary paragraph to see how each party did. Paragraph (i) says the APT rules breach sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998. So the APT rules are unlawful. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) say much the same thing, in relation to different aspects of the rules.

Then paragraphs (iv) to (vii) say that the two decisions referred to in paragraph 4 were unfair, and those decisions must be set aside.

By that yardstick, there is no doubt at all that City won and the PL lost. City's objectives were spelled out in the decision and they achieved them all.

What muddies the water - if you let it - is that City raised a lot of different arguments as to why the rules were unlawful, and why those decisions were unfair, and the majority of those arguments were not successful. This has allowed the PL and their useful idiots at the BBC to assert something of a score draw or even a PL win.

As I say, when you actually look at what the Club sought by the arbitration and the outcome, there is no doubt City won and the PL lost.

I have been trying to think of a non-legal analogy that might help. Say you were being tested for cancer. The doctor sits you down and says "we tested for lung cancer, you were clear on that. We tested for stomach cancer and you were clear on that. We tested for prostate cancer and you were clear on that. It was only testicular cancer that you tested positive for. "

Do you call that a win? Do you call that a score draw?

Do you fuck. You've been diagnosed with cancer and they're going to cut your bollocks off.

Most people would call that a complete fucking disaster.

That's a dramatic analogy I know, but the point that seems to have been glossed over by some is that something is either lawful or it is not. So when the Government gets taken to court about (say) the legality of the Rwanda scheme, five different arguments might be raised about why it is unlawful. Even if four fail, the success of the fifth tells you what the headlines will be the next day.

So here is my takeaway from the ruling: the PL drew up the new rules in a way which favoured certain teams who rely on interest free shareholder loans. They did that deliberately and knowingly and after having received advice it was probably unlawful. Then, they drew up procedural rules which effectively required City to be condemned without seeing the evidence on which they were being tried.

These are pretty basic flaws. The tribunal doesn't go this far - it's not its job - but it does raise the question why the rules were drawn up in the way they were.

One positive from the PL's perspective is that the tribunal has pretty much rejected the suggestion that the PL team that looks at these matters had any sort of agenda against City. They worked within the rules as they were drawn up, and the tribunal was pretty impressed that they went about their work diligently and conscientiously.

It wasn't their fault the rules were flawed.

This however brings me on to a wider point. I think I can summarise the tribunal's reasoning on a lot of the points City lost on in this way:

"The PL has a difficult job to do. It decided that it needed to do something to make sure that clubs don't go to the wire like Portsmouth, and the way it decided to do it was PSR. It could have done it in other ways but it chose this one, and that wasn't an objectively unreasonable decision. We recognise that they should be allowed a margin of appreciation in these matters. And the team they have brought in to deal with these matters don't have any sort of agenda against City. They just call it as they see it based on the evidence they have before them."

To put the same point in another way, the tribunal recognised that the regulator, the PL, has something of what you might call a margin of appreciation as to how it implements schemes which it judges to be in the best interests of the PL as a whole. The tribunal plainly gave the PL the benefit of the doubt in a number of situations, and as I say they were plainly satisfied that there was not a particular unspoken mission to target clubs from Gulf states.

The point that strikes me is this. Despite that margin of appreciation, despite being given the benefit of the doubt where they were, the PL was STILL found to have introduced rules and practice that were unlawful and unfair.

That is a major blow. The issue about interest-free loans from shareholders is a significant example of this. The rules were drawn up - deliberately - in a way that permitted some forms of subsidy from owners but prohibited others. Call me a cynic but it strikes me as rather likely that the reason for drawing this distinction might have something to do with who stood to benefit from the distinction that was being being drawn. (A clue: they play in red.)

But as I say, what I find really striking is that despite a tribunal giving the PL a pretty wide degree of latitude, MCFC still succeeded in showing the rules and the decisions made under them to be unlawful.

In football terms, the PL had a complete homer and he still gave us three penalties.

To my mind, that says all you need it to say about why the rules were drawn up the way they were.
Click to expand...
Thank you for a well thought out post. There is no doubt that the result favours City rather than the PL. Time will tell the significance of the panel’s verdict. To continue your cancer analogy if the cancer only affects one testicle then whilst that is a short term problem, in the long term things may well settle back to normal; if the cancer is in both testicles then the long term prospects are much more significant.

What has caused the PL more problems is their initial response to the verdict through their mouthpiece Masters which highlights serious, and possibly corrupt, deficiencies in the governance of the PL.
 
halfcenturyup said:
View attachment 134701

Once again, I find that the best analysis of any situation concerning City is on here, a humble football forum (provided you are happy to sift through it all). Pat yourselves on the back Bluemooners.
Click to expand...
Unanimity in legal circles ffs. **** is a fucking fraud.
 
"Oh Richard Masters the truth will come out!"

In what appears to be a marked change of tone, chief executive Richard Masters wrote to sides on Friday to tell them officials would ‘take the necessary time’ as they attempt to change associated party transaction (APTs) rules following a successful legal challenge from Manchester City.

1000011002.png

Masters had initially suggested necessary amendments could be 'quickly and effectively remedied' after Man City had been successful in their legal challenge.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Premier League chief warns 'no quick fix' to Man City sponsorship row

On Monday, Mail Sport revealed that a tribunal found the rules - aimed at preventing clubs from penning inflated sponsorship deals with companies linked to their owners - were unlawful.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
halfcenturyup said:
I doubt the allegations relate to rules that didn't exist at the time. The PL may be hopeless, but I doubt their lawyers are stupid.

If it looks like that, it is probably because we don't fully understand what the allegations actually are in detail. Who does?
Click to expand...
Simplistic I know, but I've never understood why City have been accused of covering up their accounts against rules that weren't in place?
 
Gingers Dad said:
Simplistic I know, but I've never understood why City have been accused of covering up their accounts against rules that weren't in place?
Click to expand...

For the most serious allegations, the rules are filing accounts and acting in good faith have always been around. If the club knowingly filed false accounts, it's difficult to argue that the club complied with those rules in good faith.
 
Chris in London said:
Having (finally) had time to read and (partially) digest the judgment, here are my thoughts for what they are worth.

First, I sort of get why the PL took the stance they did, and why some posters and commentators have called it something of a score draw. The bottom line is, if you strip it down and say 'how many of the individual battles did City win, and how many did they lose' the answer is the PL won something like 15-5. So I don't find it surprising that the PL have spun it the way they have, and there is a degree of justification there.

To decide whether a lawsuits has been, basically, either been successful or not, however - whether MCFC 'won' or lost' - it is important to understand what were the objectives of each party.

City's objective is stated in the decision at paragraph 4. City sought a declaration that the rules concerning APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the PL board concerning APTs in which MCFC have tried to participate were unlawful and should be set aside - that is rescinded.

The PL's objective was plainly to uphold their rules and to uphold the two decisions that City challenged.

Then you can look at the final summary paragraph to see how each party did. Paragraph (i) says the APT rules breach sections 2 and 18 of the Competition Act 1998. So the APT rules are unlawful. Paragraphs (ii) and (iii) say much the same thing, in relation to different aspects of the rules.

Then paragraphs (iv) to (vii) say that the two decisions referred to in paragraph 4 were unfair, and those decisions must be set aside.

By that yardstick, there is no doubt at all that City won and the PL lost. City's objectives were spelled out in the decision and they achieved them all.

What muddies the water - if you let it - is that City raised a lot of different arguments as to why the rules were unlawful, and why those decisions were unfair, and the majority of those arguments were not successful. This has allowed the PL and their useful idiots at the BBC to assert something of a score draw or even a PL win.

As I say, when you actually look at what the Club sought by the arbitration and the outcome, there is no doubt City won and the PL lost.

I have been trying to think of a non-legal analogy that might help. Say you were being tested for cancer. The doctor sits you down and says "we tested for lung cancer, you were clear on that. We tested for stomach cancer and you were clear on that. We tested for prostate cancer and you were clear on that. It was only testicular cancer that you tested positive for. "

Do you call that a win? Do you call that a score draw?

Do you fuck. You've been diagnosed with cancer and they're going to cut your bollocks off.

Most people would call that a complete fucking disaster.

That's a dramatic analogy I know, but the point that seems to have been glossed over by some is that something is either lawful or it is not. So when the Government gets taken to court about (say) the legality of the Rwanda scheme, five different arguments might be raised about why it is unlawful. Even if four fail, the success of the fifth tells you what the headlines will be the next day.

So here is my takeaway from the ruling: the PL drew up the new rules in a way which favoured certain teams who rely on interest free shareholder loans. They did that deliberately and knowingly and after having received advice it was probably unlawful. Then, they drew up procedural rules which effectively required City to be condemned without seeing the evidence on which they were being tried.

These are pretty basic flaws. The tribunal doesn't go this far - it's not its job - but it does raise the question why the rules were drawn up in the way they were.

One positive from the PL's perspective is that the tribunal has pretty much rejected the suggestion that the PL team that looks at these matters had any sort of agenda against City. They worked within the rules as they were drawn up, and the tribunal was pretty impressed that they went about their work diligently and conscientiously.

It wasn't their fault the rules were flawed.

This however brings me on to a wider point. I think I can summarise the tribunal's reasoning on a lot of the points City lost on in this way:

"The PL has a difficult job to do. It decided that it needed to do something to make sure that clubs don't go to the wire like Portsmouth, and the way it decided to do it was PSR. It could have done it in other ways but it chose this one, and that wasn't an objectively unreasonable decision. We recognise that they should be allowed a margin of appreciation in these matters. And the team they have brought in to deal with these matters don't have any sort of agenda against City. They just call it as they see it based on the evidence they have before them."

To put the same point in another way, the tribunal recognised that the regulator, the PL, has something of what you might call a margin of appreciation as to how it implements schemes which it judges to be in the best interests of the PL as a whole. The tribunal plainly gave the PL the benefit of the doubt in a number of situations, and as I say they were plainly satisfied that there was not a particular unspoken mission to target clubs from Gulf states.

The point that strikes me is this. Despite that margin of appreciation, despite being given the benefit of the doubt where they were, the PL was STILL found to have introduced rules and practice that were unlawful and unfair.

That is a major blow. The issue about interest-free loans from shareholders is a significant example of this. The rules were drawn up - deliberately - in a way that permitted some forms of subsidy from owners but prohibited others. Call me a cynic but it strikes me as rather likely that the reason for drawing this distinction might have something to do with who stood to benefit from the distinction that was being being drawn. (A clue: they play in red.)

But as I say, what I find really striking is that despite a tribunal giving the PL a pretty wide degree of latitude, MCFC still succeeded in showing the rules and the decisions made under them to be unlawful.

In football terms, the PL had a complete homer and he still gave us three penalties.

To my mind, that says all you need it to say about why the rules were drawn up the way they were.
Click to expand...
Fantastic summary. The one point I think you didn't highlight was the fact that the Premier league broke its own rules when dealing with City's case. In my eyes, that evidence on its own is damning and suggests a bias when dealing with City. The other damning point (beyond the fact they lost the case) is that they ignored City's protestations about the legality of the APT rules before they were voted through that they were illegal and not compliant with competition law - but they did it anyway. They thought they could get away with it and were above the law. The sheer arrogance and abuse of power. They picked on the wrong club.

To my mind the panel went some way to protecting the Premier league by not upholding many of City's (to my mind) valid complaints. I genuinely think they were conscious that to do so would have blown apart the whole game. Damage limitation In my opinion. The whole concept of assessing what is FMV is flawed

My last point, is that I get increasingly frustrated that some parts of the City fanbase still fall for the agenda driven drivel of the mainstream media. Stop being manipulated!! You should always have a sceptical view on the bias they pump out. Do your own research, find information that challenges the mainstream media narrative THEN make your mind up. It's all out there in social media from people with no agenda other than the truth. In this instance there was no hiding place from the truth.

This is why I have so much confidence in the 115 case. I trust my club and our board. If they'd done wrong they would have fessed up and taken the punishment. They haven't, and as a result our clubs name is being dragged through the mud. Start challenging these agenda driven nutters wherever you find them.

On the balance of probabilities after this episode, who would you believe....?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.