I wouldn’t call it damning or akin to price fixing but it’s a serious infringement which is why the rules will need to change.
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
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,138
- Team supported
- City
The rules are unlawful. Cannot be enforced. The PL have two problems: drafting regulations which are consistent with the law (and City will keep a careful eye on this) and getting the votes to accept these new regs. Not easy, especially for a governing body which never really intended FFP to be fair, or PSR to have too much to do with sustainability.discreet no, but they have the majority of the rules written. I don't think a major re-write from scratch again will be needed, just adjustments needed. Timeframe, right to challenge/reply etc.
Maybe the rip them all up and start again though, once the APT clarification arrives later. (no idea when thats due)
In practice, nobody will challenge that historic hypothesis so it’s all mootI agree with this regarding the position going forward. I think the amendments required to the rules to make them compliant are relatively straightforward and not particularly dramatic (although possibly still a win in City's eyes). Of course, the PL will also have to pass a vote with new drafting in and that may not be straightforward depending on how the various interest groups among the PL clubs shake out.
The historic position is however much more complicated. The problem is that without the inclusion of shareholder loans as APTs, the rules are unlawful. And it seems likely that several clubs may have failed PSR if they had been included (or even if not failed, had less headroom and been able to spend less). You might say that if they'd known this those clubs would've restructured their shareholder loans. Maybe- probably, even - but it's not certain.
So this means you have a situation where some clubs have been punished under unlawful rules when their competitors (who may have breached equally or even more severely if the rules had been lawful). I do see that as a really difficult problem for the PL to resolve.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,555
They normally have a LAG meeting first, so say start at 11 and finish in time for a nice lunch. Expect some leaks around now ......
It’s online, I would Imagine each club will have far more than a couple of reps listening in. The cartel will have their press officers in the room.
More material than a spelling error.Seems like a mistake in wording. I guess. Can happen. There are plenty of spelling mistakes too.
On the unlawfulness of APT, though. It's your view that the unlawfulness can be corrected easily going forward, but that damages can be awarded to any losses incurred as a result of the application of unlawful rules?
If we have the same situation for PSR because of shareholder loans, which seems likely if there is a challenge, surely that is opening up an enormous can of worms? I am beginning to see why Masters cancelled his golf event now.
Yes re unlawfulness but causation and loss the big hurdle. I’m not convinced there is a meaningful loss.
I doubt anyone will challenge PSR on this basis before they change the rules partly because there is little gain from causing the PL complete chaos. Would be an act of self sabotage. Its notable City kept the challenge to relatively discreet points around matters they always said they felt were potentially unlawful.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
Kaveh from ssnIt’s online, I would Imagine each club will have far more than a couple of reps listening in. The cartel will have their press officers in the room.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,555
Kaveh from ssn
“What…….it means is…………that clubs with………zzzzzzz”
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Just leaks? No sandwiches or sausage rolls?They normally have a LAG meeting first, so say start at 11 and finish in time for a nice lunch. Expect some leaks around now ......
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
How do clubs move on without reverting back to the original rpt rules ???Maybe, clubs voted to leave them out in the first instance, don't see anything happened retrospectively tbh. Rules will be amended, process updated and everyone moves on.
The cartel clubs obviously don't want that, several clubs outside the cartel don't want shareholder loans included & City would return to the courts if they try to force a similar 18-2 democratic vote over any illegalities
foggy1974
Well-Known Member
Can the clubs outside the cartel risk psr sanctions if they don't convert them to equity. Brighton is the one that sticks out massively19 voted in fav, see who the outlier was and if they kick off.