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

[Stoned Rose]

Panja should be getting zilch respect on this forum after spending many years writing biased and dishonest articles about our club at the behest of others who don’t have our best interests at heart.
He has used every opportunity to paint us in the worst possible light and has been a fucking snide **** whilst doing it.
He’s one of a handful who have been paid shills.
He gets nothing but contempt from me the disingenuous parasite.

**** shouldn’t even be getting mentioned on here.

 

[bluemanchester]

I don't think there is a cat in hells chance of the shareholder loans being retrospectively applied while le arse are near the top of the tree for benefit of them. The panel and PL will not want to upset the untouchable red tops plus one, maybe two with Brighton, either collectively or individually. City will be going back to court in my view.

City boiling piss till 26 ;-)

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

**** shouldn’t even be getting mentioned on here.

as a subject of an in memorium entry would be ok .

 

[remember arthur mann]

My view is increasingly coming round to the conclusion that the 3 members of the tribunal were founding members of the Stanley Unwin Appreciation Society and are sat there pissing themselves laughing at the chaos and confusion they've caused.

But like you, I could be completely wrong.

 

[Oldham Exile]

Panja should be getting zilch respect on this forum after spending many years writing biased and dishonest articles about our club at the behest of others who don’t have our best interests at heart.
He has used every opportunity to paint us in the worst possible light and has been a fucking snide **** whilst doing it.
He’s one of a handful who have been paid shills.
He gets nothing but contempt from me the disingenuous parasite.

100%

Thundercunt

 

[domalino]

It doesn’t really matter if the rules are null and void or just unlawful does it? Because sponsorships still need clearance from the league and they showed with Newcastles takeover they’re more than happy to pass an emergency rule blocking new sponsors being approved until permanent rules are passed.

So on a practical level, it doesn’t change anything for City, we still need our sponsorships to hold up to every legal test and requirement, just not the extra steps that pushed it into unlawful territory.

 

[RadcliffeRick]

I was involved whilst working with HMRC with a non league club administration there were significant conflicts so couldn’t stray into areas where there would have been issues such as I had no dealings with wages or contracts however I can assure you that the constraints , strange requirements if you like, imposed by the footballing authorities if you wanted to firstly be affiliated and secondly if you want to play at certain levels meant you have to provide facilities that aren’t required under any law but you simply have to provide or don’t get to compete.

For instance the FA require that in clubs A&M there are several inclusions one of my favourites is that if a club / company goes into liquidation after settling any liabilities the surplus isn’t shared as would be the norm any sums have to be donated to local charities. There is no legal requirement for such a clause but unless it’s there in the A&M then you don’t get to play .

Similarly if can’t show tenure of your ground for a certain length of time you don’t get to play. Where in company law does it say that to trade you have to have a lease for x number of months?

Or what about fit and proper test ? We can all see the merits but if company law doesn’t require someone to be forbidden from being a director or an owner how can football? Should or would someone be justified to challenge if say they wanted to invest say 11% in another club?

Or what about the football creditor rule? That is clearly contrary to Insolvency Law but despite challenge an opinion is that the footballing authorities rules usurp statute.

My point over the last few days was that like it or not a process now has to follow my belief was, and I think Chris confirms that APT remains albeit unenforceable till challenged clauses are removed by way of formal vote but that vote could I believe could be simply to suspend them.

Irrespective we have to accept that sometimes the rules may well onerous and indeed could be open to challenge but the dilemma is how far can challenges go?

I didn't read the full post so may have missed something. If all these rules and tests are in place how come Bury went under?

 

[WRicko]

The current APT rules require contracts to be changed to fmv before they are accepted by the PL. It's not a simple correction for PSR purposes. That is the whole point of an ex-ante assessment. I'm amazed you don't know that after 18 months of reading this thread.

And there are perfectly good business reasons why a loan may be interest free or low interest, or not have fixed repayment dates, or not be repayable at all. Who are the PL to tell an owner's directors what sort of loan to make available? Or a sponsor's directors how much their sponsorship should be in their contract?

Why be so condescending ? Ex ante assessment ?

FFP / PSR Accounts are not the same as the normal set of accounts allowances and I assume revenue adjusted for fair market value. I don’t see why clubs could not receive an interest free loan from director and put it in the normal accounts as such but then but it in the PSR accounts with fair market interest applied.

Also as I say no one is forcing a club to take a loan or give a loan. And again as you did not say what the disadvantage for the lender of getting extra money for a loan ?

 

[Vic]

For them to be deemed null and void as well as unlawful. I’m no Competition law expert but it seems from what I’ve read to be unclear what the answer is. In those circumstances, I think the Tribunal would find a way to limit the damage to the original APT rules. As I have said even if they are null and void, the replacement regime will be implemented in line with 2021 APT. But of course, I may be completely wrong and APT may never return. Just giving a view.

My reading is simply s.2 of the Competition Act. If the rules are unlawful, the decision to adopt the rules is prohibited, and s.2(4) the decision is void. Decision void = no extant rules.

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Rather depends on what the "settlement" put forward is?

It doesn't. If we accept any deal the rumblings will still be there. We want it cleared completely, no semblance of doubt, 100% exoneration.