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

DenisLawBackHeel74 said:
But surely the PL will need to adjust these rules and make them apply retroactively …..or have some type of amnesty which is also retroactive…
Click to expand...
The PL could concede the case and drop the charges, or some of the charges, if they didn't want to lose (more) face over this. They might be looking for a way out of the sorry mess they have created. Who knows what they are thinking, or what they are being advised. Their lawyers will no doubt advise them to continue the case to see if they can land one or two of their charges.
 
Dribble said:
If we take this back to the very basics, what is the problem with an owner investing their money into their company? This is the elementary problem of FFP/PSR.

Cutting to the chase, FFP & PSR were evidently brought in to stop the wealthier Manchester City from competing with the cartel, whilst allowing the cartel to keep spending their way to success.

City have found ways around this obvious con, hence why UEFA & the PL keep moving the goal posts & closing loopholes, which has been as effective as closing the stable doors after the knackered old donkey has bolted for the hills.

This is why I rarely get into the weeds of this farce with opposition fans. It's like holding an argument over whether Santa Claus will be wearing red or sky blue this Christmas? Santa doesn't exist, which renders the opinions moot.

The only reason FFP/PSR/APT are still a thing 15 years after their introduction is because UEFA & the PL are judge, jury & executioner where football is concerned. The two times external arbiters have ruled on their judgements, they've found against them, but as long as UEFA & the PL are allowed to self regulate, they'll continue to concoct further cunning plans to stymie Manchester City.

It's like we're the birds in a long running series of the Wile E Cayote or Catch The Pigeon.

View attachment 134824View attachment 134825
Click to expand...
Don't you just love Dick Dastardly.
 
Looking at the current "115" hearing, as it has now come to the attention of the P.L. via the first tribunal decision, that City didn't have a flat pitch to play on, due to the unlawfulness of the P.L.'s own rules, I don't see how the present tribunal can ignore submissions by City trying to refer to that decision. Last week it was reported that City's attempts to reference the recent decision were being ignored by the current panel.
If the current panel are standing on ceremony and saying that City can't amend ANY argument they hadn't previously given notice of prior to the hearing, that's a very dangerous course for this panel to follow, bearing in mind the "unlawfulness" which has already been found within the rules.
That to me is contrary to natural justice, and a recipe for further litigation, especially when taking account of the strength of that 1st tribunal panel, who came down very strongly in City's favour - irrespective of the subsequent misleading narrative of the P.L. and the media generally.
Of course, the P.L. lawyers could accept and recognise that finding of unlawfulness if they wished - and allow City to use that finding - if they were reasonable, but they can't (yet!) risk all the 115 charges falling apart and being thrown out, I guess, so the argument will continue.... for a while - but I wonder if it's going to dawn on the P.L. soon that they need to close this all off very quickly now; settle with City; then redefine ALL the relevant rules?
What a can of worms we've opened.
 
halfcenturyup said:
There is clearly nothing illegal about soft loans, per se.

But here is a question. Is it actually legal to prevent an owner funding a company with soft loans? For example, directors of a company that owns a club have a Companies Act responsibility to act in the interest of the company's shareholders. There may be good reasons why the directors consider soft loans to be in the interests of the shareholders. Who are the PL to say they can't do that? Is it not abuse of a dominant position to force an owner to restructure its funding (that is what the current APT rules require), potentially unfavourably to the shareholders.

It's the same question as forcing a club to renegotiate downwards (or upwards!) a sponsorship contract which was accepted by both parties as being to the benefit of the shareholders.

Which responsibility takes precedence? The responsibility of the directors of the club, or of the club owners, to their shareholders, or the contractual responsibility set out in the PL rules?

Or maybe I am missing something simple. It wouldn't be the first time ......
Click to expand...
Personally I believe that the limitation of owner investment is a clear breach of competition law but this was not the issue in question in our recent case. The club had taken a pinch in 2013 because owner investment was not envisaged because of our rapidly growing revenue. Sponsorship was very much a live issue and two of our deals had fallen foul of the new regs, which we considered unlawful. At the same time other streams of revenue were not brought within these regs even though the source of the revenue couldn't be any more "related" or "associated" or whatever and this made the terms of competition unfair and unlawful.

So, what I'm pointing out is that such soft loans are in no way illegal, anymore so than a sponsorship deal. But if sponsorships are to be in line with market value it is not lawful if some other forms of revenue are not.

If your point is that limiting owner investment is unlawful I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but I think Khaldoon would say quite simply that that is someone else's fight .... Newcastle perhaps?
 
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.