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

[halfcenturyup]

It would be nice to see a summary (an honest one) of what we actually win and what it means. This thread is too fucking difficult to follow.

Let me give it a go.

The rules were found to be unlawful for three reasons: never including shareholder loans within their scope; certain changes introduced in 2024 that removed a margin of error; and never allowing clubs to comment on the data the PL used to calculate FMV.

The rules were also found to be unfairly applied to two of the clubs sponsorship deals so the PL conclusions were set aside.

And the PL caused unreasonable delays in the assessment of two sponsorships.

This was a partial award. The tribunal gave time to the parties to agree on a way forward with the potential for injunctive relief (more legally binding decisions of the tribunal) later and put off any damage or cost awards until later. A final award will be made when the parties and the tribunal are ready.

Who won? It's subjective depending on what you think the objectives of City were. If you think they were trying to have all the rules kicked out, then they may have "lost". If you think they were just trying to get their sponsorship deals through and give the PL a bloody nose, then they may have "won".

As always, some uncertainty over what it all means. City seem to say the rules are unlawful so they are null and void since introduction and have to be rewritten. The PL seem to say they can just amend the unlawful parts. We probably need the tribunal to address that in their final award.

Hope that helps.

 

[jacko74]

Did this get any mentions at today’s press conference? I'm assuming not

It's funny how the new narrative in the media is "how boring all this legal stuff is and let's just get back to the football"

How strange considering how often they mention the 115 charges rather than just concentrating on the football.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

It's funny how the new narrative in the media is "how boring all this legal stuff is and let's just get back to the football"

How strange considering how often they mention the 115 charges rather than just concentrating on the football.

I think the change in tone is because they think we’re likely to win on the 115/129 charges. They’re slowly performing a U turn.

 

[Dribble]

It would be nice to see a summary (an honest one) of what we actually win and what it means. This thread is too fucking difficult to follow.

Is APT still being mentioned in the news? Cutting to the chase...

Verdict: Unlawful, unlawful, unlawful, unlawful. Unfair, Unfair, unfair. Unreasonable, unreasonable. APT null & void & unenforceable.

It's that simple...

Masters' response to the cartel clubs is as follows... \0/

 

[malg]

Let me give it a go.

The rules were found to be unlawful for three reasons: never including shareholder loans within their scope; certain changes introduced in 2024 that removed a margin of error; and never allowing clubs to comment on the data the PL used to calculate FMV.

The rules were also found to be unfairly applied to two of the clubs sponsorship deals so the PL conclusions were set aside.

And the PL caused unreasonable delays in the assessment of two sponsorships.

This was a partial award. The tribunal gave time to the parties to agree on a way forward with the potential for injunctive relief (more legally binding decisions of the tribunal) later and put off any damage or cost awards until later. A final award will be made when the parties and the tribunal are ready.

Who won? It's subjective depending on what you think the objectives of City were. If you think they were trying to have all the rules kicked out, then they may have "lost". If you think they were just trying to get their sponsorship deals through and give the PL a bloody nose, then they may have "won".

As always, some uncertainty over what it all means. City seem to say the rules are unlawful so they are null and void since introduction and have to be rewritten. The PL seem to say they can just amend the unlawful parts. We probably need the tribunal to address that in their final award.

Hope that helps.

Cheers. That helps.

 

[dadnlad]

Has football finished as city had audacity to challenge unlawful rules
Thought not

 

[spinney]

I think the change in tone is because they think we’re likely to win on the 115/129 charges. They’re slowly performing a U turn.

it is boring ...... for them , theyve entered the mid table world of the no hopers and they dont like it when they are not winning, what was the quote from one of the prawn sandwich brigade at OT a while back ... ' i dont pay money to watch utd lose ! ' - well they do now !

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It would be nice to see a summary (an honest one) of what we actually win and what it means. This thread is too fucking difficult to follow.

Here's my take on it (if you consider me honest of course):

PrestwichBlue’s Substack | Substack

My Substack replacing my King of the Kippax column. Write about football finance and politics mainly, particularly where these concern Manchester City. Click to read PrestwichBlue’s Substack, a Substack publication with hundreds of subscribers.

kingofthekippax.substack.com

 

[KS55]

Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there, it’s all gone quiet over there…..
Before the APT case, the redshirts mounted a huge PR campaign about how it would be the end of football if City won the case. It is now a couple of weeks since the panel declared that the APT rules were unlawful and we have a full PL programme this weekend. Football isn’t dead yet.
The PL reacted to the panel’s verdict with typical Masters’ insouciance: oh it’s just a minor adjustment to the rules, we’ll have it solved in no time.
City’s General Counsel said “Oi, not so fast, the rules are unlawful and thus null and void”.
Masters still didn’t get it and arranged meetings with the member clubs………and then cancelled them. Since then, nothing. Not a peep from the ‘master’.
What is happening? I suspect that the PL’s legal team have been giving him strong advice:
- You cannot solve this with a quick fix.
- Your best bet is to junk the APT rules and go back to relying on IAS 24. If you think clubs are not properly declaring Related party transactions, challenge them with an admin rule such that they have to justify associated transactions to the league with an explanation. If you are not satisfied with that, then take action against them, showing these transactions to be caught by IAS 24.
- If you are worried about clubs spending huge sums and killing competition, put more regs in place that limit spending. Forget about trying to police funding.
Hmmm… so what is Masters’ problem. Embarassment? Blow back from the clubs on the money wasted in this wild goose chase?
Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there….

 

[halfcenturyup]

Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there, it’s all gone quiet over there…..
Before the APT case, the redshirts mounted a huge PR campaign about how it would be the end of football if City won the case. It is now a couple of weeks since the panel declared that the APT rules were unlawful and we have a full PL programme this weekend. Football isn’t dead yet.
The PL reacted to the panel’s verdict with typical Masters’ insouciance: oh it’s just a minor adjustment to the rules, we’ll have it solved in no time.
City’s General Counsel said “Oi, not so fast, the rules are unlawful and thus null and void”.
Masters still didn’t get it and arranged meetings with the member clubs………and then cancelled them. Since then, nothing. Not a peep from the ‘master’.
What is happening? I suspect that the PL’s legal team have been giving him strong advice:
- You cannot solve this with a quick fix.
- Your best bet is to junk the APT rules and go back to relying on IAS 24. If you think clubs are not properly declaring Related party transactions, challenge them with an admin rule such that they have to justify associated transactions to the league with an explanation. If you are not satisfied with that, then take action against them, showing these transactions to be caught by IAS 24.
- If you are worried about clubs spending huge sums and killing competition, put more regs in place that limit spending. Forget about trying to police funding.
Hmmm… so what is Masters’ problem. Embarassment? Blow back from the clubs on the money wasted in this wild goose chase?
Oh, it’s all gone quiet over there….

:) It is very quiet. After the initial few tweets from the usual suspects, all the briefing is from the City side. I wonder why?

The only noise against is from Harris / Magic Twat crying about City briefing journalists and investigating the timing around Martin Samuel's first pro-City piece on the APT result as some sort of gotcha. YCMIU. He would be better looking at the timing of Ziegler's first piece on the 115 and draw conclusions from that. What a tosspot.