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

[KS55]

My view hasn't changed at all. It is best illustrated by my view on costs - as I explained yesterday, I don't believe the PL will pay more than 10-20% of City's costs and it is most likely that the parties agree to pay their own costs.

You've missed the point on Panja. Panja promoted Leaf's original view as well considered when it was an immediate reaction. When I pointed that out, Panja tried to make out I was discrediting Leaf's position which I was not. I was merely pointing out it was limited because he couldn't have read it. Now Leaf has seemingly considered things and appears to say things are consequential, Panja should promote that view as equally as the provisional view.

I don't agree with either of Leaf's view myself. I believe the shareholder loan stuff is largely irrelevant, that APT is not null and void, that even if it is the teams will pass a replacement in line with the original APT (now found to be lawful) and that the key finding is that you can put the all the 2024 changes in the bin as unlawful (as City warned the PL and clubs in October 2021).

I don’t quite understand your point on shareholder loans. Are you saying that if the 2024 changes are put in the bin, the loans issue disappears?

 

[Chris in London]

Oh. Fair enough, then. It's that simple?

Nothing about "abuse of a dominant position requiring directors to foresake their Companies Acts responsibility to perform their duties for the benefit of their shareholders", or some such?

A little disappointing, but I can understand the principle, at least :)

A contract has two sides, though. What about the third party? What right does the PL have to insist that a third party, who doesn't even want to come into your house, also has to take his shoes off?

If you want to come into my house not only do you have to take your shoes off, but so does your friend. And if he doesn’t want to you still can’t come into my house.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If you want to come into my house not only do you have to take your shoes off, but so does your friend. And if he doesn’t want to you still can’t come into my house.

:) We could extend this analogy all day, but I will accept that you don't think the PL requiring clubs and third parties to amend otherwise legal contracts is an issue and shut up.

 

[slbsn]

I don’t quite understand your point on shareholder loans. Are you saying that if the 2024 changes are put in the bin, the loans issue disappears?

No 2 separate points. 2024 amendments, will go. Shareholder loans going forward will be FMVed for market interest rates.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Red shirt propaganda in full effect now, it's truly embarrassing as well as deeply deeply concerning for the sanctity of football

View attachment 134902

Sam Wallace is an arsehole.
A fully paid up Rag full of self entitlement.
Originally the "Manchester" Football Correspondent of the Telegraph he bacame "Northern Correspondent - 'coz he only ever did stories in the rags.
The club need to ban this areshole/weasel from City games ASAP.
I really have had enough of the club rolling out the red carpet for journalists who continue to kick us in the face.

 

[slbsn]

Fair enough, we will see in the next couple of weeks, I suppose.

Just thought lawyers engaging with journalists about legal cases was punching down, which is something I'm not keen on.

Anyway, you can punch me on legal matters as much as you want, and frequently do :) but keep it up, I will always be grateful to you, @petrusha and @Chris in London for educating me about law and sports law over the last eighteen months much more than I had ever thought I would have needed. It has all certainly helped me shape positions on these cases that I am comfortable with.

And probably wrong about :)

Odd take. A journalist who is claiming to be objective (to the extent Panja is) should not try to mislead his audience by pushing a narrative as one thing when it is, in my view, misleading, preliminary and incomplete. He did that by pushing first a questionable summary re the databank (I stand by that he has good sources as does Delaney etc) and then exaggerating Leaf's summary. When I then pointed this out, he made a false allegation that I was punching down on a lawyer. It is not punching down to suggest to Panja that when his chosen lawyer on the subject, says something very different from his initial take, that Panja has a responsibility to broadcast that update to his audience as an objective journalist. You may disagree but it is hardly punching down. I am engaging with him on his journalism and objectivity not his legal understanding.

 

[Cobwebcat]

Although I have no knowledge of the law I like learning about it and I generally understand most of what has gone on these past 10 years.

With this latest APT ruling, and its consequences, I can’t follow at all. However, that is because no two lawyers agree either.

This has lead me to believe that the panel’s findings, in its existing form, are confusing at best.

I can see that there is a World where they expand on their original findings which may make matters clearer. I don’t know why they didn’t do this straight away to negate all this confusion but then it’s probably standard practice.

My conclusion is I’ll have to wait and see the panel’s second attempt and that the law is often vague. I wonder if it has to be this vague or it is designed that way so they make more money out of the situation.

115 needs to be a lot clearer but I seriously doubt that. I’ll go straight to the penalties section (if any) and work backwards from there.

 

[BlueAnorak]

My view hasn't changed at all. It is best illustrated by my view on costs - as I explained yesterday, I don't believe the PL will pay more than 10-20% of City's costs and it is most likely that the parties agree to pay their own costs.

You've missed the point on Panja. Panja promoted Leaf's original view as well considered when it was an immediate reaction. When I pointed that out, Panja tried to make out I was discrediting Leaf's position which I was not. I was merely pointing out it was limited because he couldn't have read it. Now Leaf has seemingly considered things and appears to say things are consequential, Panja should promote that view as equally as the provisional view.

I don't agree with either of Leaf's view myself. I believe the shareholder loan stuff is largely irrelevant, that APT is not null and void, that even if it is the teams will pass a replacement in line with the original APT (now found to be lawful) and that the key finding is that you can put the all the 2024 changes in the bin as unlawful (as City warned the PL and clubs in October 2021).

We have to pay 1/20 of their costs. That is patently UNFAIR.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Odd take. A journalist who is claiming to be objective (to the extent Panja is) should not try to mislead his audience by pushing a narrative as one thing when it is, in my view, misleading, preliminary and incomplete. He did that by pushing first a questionable summary re the databank (I stand by that he has good sources as does Delaney etc) and then exaggerating Leaf's summary. When I then pointed this out, he made a false allegation that I was punching down on a lawyer. It is not punching down to suggest to Panja that when his chosen lawyer on the subject, says something very different from his initial take, that Panja has a responsibility to broadcast that update to his audience as an objective journalist. You may disagree but it is hardly punching down. I am engaging with him on his journalism and objectivity not his legal understanding.

Not sure why you bother tbh. You may as well engage with an ironing board.

 

[Chris in London]

:) We could extend this analogy all day, but I will accept that you don't think the PL requiring clubs and third parties to amend otherwise legal contracts is an issue and shut up.

I do think it’s an issue actually, and the move from the ex post system where there were notional adjustments for accounting purposes to the ex ante system where you need prior approval from the PL before you can even enter into a contract with a third party seems to me to infringe fairly basic rights.

However the tribunal disagrees so that’s that.