I don’t think that is correct and it is not the reading of FIFA re Diarra either. The offending clauses are unenforceable but nobody is currently trying to enforce them so that is moot. There is also a question of the limits of the view that things are null and void. Is APT a defined and discrete regime within the rules? If the shareholder loans issue also infects PSR (which it does) and the related party rules (which it does) are we arguing that all the financial rules are null and void? Are we arguing the entire rule book is null and void? I doubt it to both.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,936
Could this drag on for ages because our “legal eagles” are busy 115ing it at the moment?
Can KCs undertake concurrent tribunals?
Can KCs undertake concurrent tribunals?
I tweeted about this earlier. I think it’s a real issue given the overlap of Counsel teams on both sides (particularly City)Could this drag on for ages because our “legal eagles” are busy 115ing it at the moment?
Can KCs undertake concurrent tribunals?
sir baconface
Well-Known Member
I’ve followed this thread closely and would like to thank the five or six members whose background has equipped them to show genuine insight. They’ve also given us a lot of time and patience too. You know who you are, guys, so I won’t name names.
Even so, there are a few issues flapping around on which nobody has fully convinced me. The two biggest for me are the current/ongoing role of the fab three and the question of costs.
That’s fine. I understand things much better than when I started and look forward to see the remaining pieces fall into place.
Overall, I still see City as the clear first round winners even if a body of legal beagles allegedly say otherwise. We shall see.
Even so, there are a few issues flapping around on which nobody has fully convinced me. The two biggest for me are the current/ongoing role of the fab three and the question of costs.
That’s fine. I understand things much better than when I started and look forward to see the remaining pieces fall into place.
Overall, I still see City as the clear first round winners even if a body of legal beagles allegedly say otherwise. We shall see.
The demise of Bury is an example of the need for regulation but irrespective an individual or indeed a concert party will often have the authority under company law can force a situation where the authorities have to act.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?
Historically clubs most under threat are where owners overspent and as they say chased a dream. Football sucks people in and when they run out of money they start to juggle finances not paying creditors like HMRC on time then before they know it incoming is a WUO before you know it either administration or a CVA is applied for with that comes a point deduction and less some other mug is found ( which happens more often than not) then the club is wound up.
This is an area where the White Paper suggests the regulator will have input significant at that
Alan Harper's Tash
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 59,936
Interesting. Does that mean that the APT panel/PL may have to implement an interim ruling on APTs until Counsels are available?I tweeted about this earlier. I think it’s a real issue given the overlap of Counsel teams on both sides (particularly City)
If Counsels aren’t available for months, it could potentially stop new sponsorships being ratified.
citizen_maine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 14,167
or they'll need to allow them under previous rulesInteresting. Does that mean that the APT panel/PL may have to implement an interim ruling on APTs until Counsels are available?
If Counsels aren’t available for months, it could potentially stop new sponsorships being ratified.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Think nothing of it. :)I’ve followed this thread closely and would like to thank the five or six members whose background has equipped them to show genuine insight. They’ve also given us a lot of time and patience too. You know who you are, guys, so I won’t name names.
Even so, there are a few issues flapping around on which nobody has fully convinced me. The two biggest for me are the current/ongoing role of the fab three and the question of costs.
That’s fine. I understand things much better than when I started and look forward to see the remaining pieces fall into place.
Overall, I still see City as the clear first round winners even if a body of legal beagles allegedly say otherwise. We shall see.
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
We all appear to be assuming that the turkey’s are going to vote for Xmas.
As I understand it any proposed rule changes have to go for a vote by all Premier League members.
APT must now include shareholder loans if it is to be implemented.
Why would any of these clubs dramatically increase their chances of failing PSR rules by voting for interest on shareholder loans.
It’s not whether City won or the Premier League won or whether APT is null and void, it’s whether Turkey’s are going to vote for Xmas.
As an aside, will shareholder loans now also be considered as Related Party Transactions? If so, where does that leave the league and it’s rules?
As I understand it any proposed rule changes have to go for a vote by all Premier League members.
APT must now include shareholder loans if it is to be implemented.
Why would any of these clubs dramatically increase their chances of failing PSR rules by voting for interest on shareholder loans.
It’s not whether City won or the Premier League won or whether APT is null and void, it’s whether Turkey’s are going to vote for Xmas.
As an aside, will shareholder loans now also be considered as Related Party Transactions? If so, where does that leave the league and it’s rules?
Impeccable One
Well-Known Member
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?
Because the PL rejected a major black pudding sponsor, as not representing FMV !