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

[KS55]

Except that some specific rules weren't actually in force so we've been charged under catch-all rules, like failure to show utmost good faith, in some cases.

I love the concept of utmost good faith as the basis for a dispute.
“ Tell me, Mr. Masters, what do you consider to be the definition of u g f that was in force at the time in this case?”
“Er….”

 

[halfcenturyup]

The rules were UNLAWFUL

The clubs had the right and opportunity to have them verified.

Ignorance in the face of the law is no excuse.

The loans created commercial/sporting benefits.

Pay the interest and sue the PL !!

I may be completely wrong, but the tribunal only found that the APT rules were unlawful. So the question is whether they are null and void, and therefore unenforceable since inception and so any deals that were refused or modified can be waived through and unmodified (as City seem prefer for obvious reasons) or whether the rules just keep working with a few tweaks (as the PL is hoping). The proposed rule changes as reported by Keegan and Ziegler only relate to the APT rules, as well. Of course, I am wary of believing they understand the relevance of anything.

Still, the tribunal made no judgment on the lawfulness of the PSR rules, afaik, other than by inference (they obviously are for the treatment of shareholder loans, if that was unlawful for APT). Now, what does the PL do with those rules? If City's argument for APT prevails, then that means FFP/PSR would have been unlawful since inception in 2016 as well. That causes the PL lots of problems. And how shareholder loan interest is treated is the least of them.

We don't know if the tribunal has made a determination on how to proceed, do we? Keegan said the tribunal has been asked, which implies no answer yet. It seems to me that that is the big issue here, nothing else.

 

[Chappie]

Just to add to the debate I personally can’t see that any charges , irrespective of the arbitration outcome, can be laid for clubs that were complying with the rules that were in place .
Add to that any PL club were able to take advantage of the now flawed concession. Just like converting debt to equity these loans were by and large granted to fund losses that were PSR compliant

Just like we complied with the rules that were in place at the time but still got punished by UEFA after they shifted the goalposts midstream.
So as usual you want a different set of rules for the cartel clubs.
Everything is hunky dorry in your world till effects your team.

 

[terraloon]

Just like we complied with the rules that were in place at the time but still got punished by UEFA after they shifted the goalposts midstream.
So as usual you want a different set of rules for the cartel clubs.
Everything is hunky dorry in your world till effects your team.

Strange really because even CAS ruled that City didn’t comply . Yes as we all know UEFa didn’t land the charges that were the main issue as far as they were concerned but all that is taking over old coals!
I don’t want different uses for any club and as for things being hunky dory as you put it you clearly haven’t been watching matters Chelsea going back to Gael Kakuta and indeed the two window ban it’s even worth looking at the infamous tapping up charges re Ashley Cole and then look at how other clubs have done the exact same but received little to no sanction

 

[halfcenturyup]

Strange really because even CAS ruled that City didn’t comply . Yes as we all know UEFa didn’t land the charges that were the main issue as far as they were concerned but all that is taking over old coals!
I don’t want different uses for any club and as for things being hunky dory as you put it you clearly haven’t been watching matters Chelsea going back to Gael Kakuta and indeed the two window ban it’s even worth looking at the infamous tapping up charges re Ashley Cole and then look at how other clubs have done the exact same but received little to no sanction.

He is talking about the 2014 settlement, I think.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I love the concept of utmost good faith as the basis for a dispute.
“ Tell me, Mr. Masters, what do you consider to be the definition of u g f that was in force at the time in this case?”
“Er….”

I think it's fair to say that producing accounts that don't show a true and fair view, misleading the auditors about them and then presenting them to the PL probably constitutes not acting in the utmost good faith. Those, and the non-cooperation allegations, are the only ones that refer to the requirement to act in the utmost good faith.

The other allegations don't, iirc.

 

[WRicko]

The rules are void.

So if the clubs with interest-free loans don't have to pay interest retrospectively, it's hard to see how City's Etihad deal can be retrospectively judged to be of excessive value.

There is a bug difference and that should be obvious. Assuming we have done anything wrong and anything happens being punished at a later date when new evidence comes to light that shows the contracts are in affect fake accounts fraudulent etc. and punishing a club for following the rules (we won’t have ) but them being wrong and so they would have failed had the rules been right. I think clubs should have to pay interest on existing loans going forward and any new ones but don’t see how you can punish clubs retrospectively

 

[halfcenturyup]

There is a bug difference and that should be obvious. Assuming we have done anything wrong and anything happens being punished at a later date when new evidence comes to light that shows the contracts are in affect fake accounts fraudulent etc. and punishing a club for following the rules (we won’t have ) but them being wrong and so they would have failed had the rules been right. I think clubs should have to pay interest on existing loans going forward and any new ones but don’t see how you can punish clubs retrospectively

Happy we cleared that up :)

 

[Vic]

There is a bug difference and that should be obvious. Assuming we have done anything wrong and anything happens being punished at a later date when new evidence comes to light that shows the contracts are in affect fake accounts fraudulent etc. and punishing a club for following the rules (we won’t have ) but them being wrong and so they would have failed had the rules been right. I think clubs should have to pay interest on existing loans going forward and any new ones but don’t see how you can punish clubs retrospectively

In English please.

 

[Vic]

I may be completely wrong, but the tribunal only found that the APT rules were unlawful. So the question is whether they are null and void, and therefore unenforceable since inception and so any deals that were refused or modified can be waived through and unmodified (as City seem prefer for obvious reasons) or whether the rules just keep working with a few tweaks (as the PL is hoping). The proposed rule changes as reported by Keegan and Ziegler only relate to the APT rules, as well. Of course, I am wary of believing they understand the relevance of anything.

Still, the tribunal made no judgment on the lawfulness of the PSR rules, afaik, other than by inference (they obviously are for the treatment of shareholder loans, if that was unlawful for APT). Now, what does the PL do with those rules? If City's argument for APT prevails, then that means FFP/PSR would have been unlawful since inception in 2016 as well. That causes the PL lots of problems. And how shareholder loan interest is treated is the least of them.

We don't know if the tribunal has made a determination on how to proceed, do we? Keegan said the tribunal has been asked, which implies no answer yet. It seems to me that that is the big issue here, nothing else.

If the rules are unlawful, the decision to introduce them was prohibited and therefore void. Competition Act 1998 s.2.