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

[Oldham Exile]

Credit to Villa for having the courage of their convictions and making their position clear in advance. In doing so, they offer a pleasing contrast with Ziegler's source, the snide, pusillanimous, weaselly, gutless little fucking shitbag who hides behind a cloak of anonymity while having his client journalist print poisonous and mendacious drivel such as the comment about Friday's vote being critical for the PL's future.

I have it on good authority - the cult of rawk - that Villa are only voting that way due to the self-interests of the owner rather than doing what is best for the club. They have a desperate need to deny that there is any possibility that CITY are in the right and others might start to see that.

Re: 115 charges for the scorched earth cheating bastards on & off the pitch
« Reply #9983 on: November 19, 2024, 04:21:17 pm »

The villa owner has construction contracts worth billions with the Abu Dhabi government, so it's not surprising. He's doing what's good for him financially, not the club.

 

[Chris in London]

I've not been following this of late. Re whether the APT rules are void, as the club says, have we not yet established why? It's in the Competition Act 1998, s.2.

If the rules are unlawful, the agreement or decision to introduce them is prohibited, and prohibited decisions are void.

Agreements or decisions that have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are prohibited [s.2(1)(b)].

Any agreement or decision which is prohibited by subsection (1) is void. [s.2(4)].

It's a pity that the panel's decision didn't spell this out, or (given that it's contested) that the panel hasn't been asked whether their ruling that the rules are unlawful means that the rules are void.

I completely agree. Re your last point perhaps they thought they didn’t need to…

 

[Blueknows]

Yes. Fwiw, I think it comes down to how Chelsea and Everton decide to vote. And there may well be he a handful of abstentions as this is all getting needlessly confrontational. If 6 other clubs abstain, then five against kills it in any case.

I am still amazed the PL are going ahead with it. They (or should I say the cartel) seem to be desperately trying to stop something really significant happening, imho.

Don't they need 14 for to pass it ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've not been following this of late. Re whether the APT rules are void, as the club says, have we not yet established why? It's in the Competition Act 1998, s.2.

If the rules are unlawful, the agreement or decision to introduce them is prohibited, and prohibited decisions are void.

Agreements or decisions that have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition are prohibited [s.2(1)(b)].

Any agreement or decision which is prohibited by subsection (1) is void. [s.2(4)].

It's a pity that the panel's decision didn't spell this out, or (given that it's contested) that the panel hasn't been asked whether their ruling that the rules are unlawful means that the rules are void.

Yes, you have always said that. Will make the PL look pretty stupid if you are right. Again. Fingers crossed :)

 

[slbsn]

I completely agree. Re your last point perhaps they thought they didn’t need to…

We know the issues the Tribunal were asked to decide. Neither party thought to ask if the answer is "yes" in respect of certain elements does that mean the whole set of rules are null and void until the follow up questions.

"1. Do the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) have the object of preventing,distorting or restricting competition:a. by reason of the principles and/or framework in European SuperLeague applyingin the present case and the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) failingto comply with those principles/that framework;b. for any other reason?2. Do the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) have the effect of preventing,distorting or restricting competition?3. If the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) do have the effect of preventing,distorting or restricting competition, does the ‘ancillary restraint’ doctrine apply, such thatthey nevertheless do not infringe competition law?4. If the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) do have the object or effect ofpreventing, distorting or restricting competition, and the ancillary restraint doctrine doesnot apply, do they meet the criteria for exemption under s. Competition Act ?5. Do the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) give rise to an abuse of a dominantposition by the Respondent?6. If the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) do give rise to a prima facie abuseof a dominant position by the Respondent, are they nevertheless justified by objectivenecessity?"

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

I didn't know the vote was tomorrow - could be a bad day for the PL.

Aston Villa will back Man City in voting against changes to APT rules

Aston Villa owner Nassef Sawiris says the club will join Manchester City in voting against amendments the Premier League has proposed to rules governing commercial deals.

www.bbc.co.uk

Finally realising that the cartel clubs don’t have his best interests at heart.

A turning point, maybe?

 

[SilverFox2]

How the fuck can they expect to win a case when they couldn’t even list the charges correctly that they’ve been investigating…….

As soon as they were told they’d got that wrong, they should have known it’s beyond their capability.

Refusal to learn from your own mistakes is surely unintelligent.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Don't they need 14 for to pass it ?

They need two thirds of those voting to approve it, so if 6 abstain they need two thirds of 14, which is 10 votes. Or the club need to organise four more to vote against it.

I think :)

 

[laserblue]

Worryingly I can remember watching Juke Box Jury.
I think the Brummie lass was called Janice.

She was on Thank Your Lucky Stars. She was meant to only be on the first programme but because the audience cheered and applauded every time she said "Oi'll give it foive" the producers kept her on as a permanent member of the three person panel for several years. She was from Walsall.

 

[bluemoon32]

standing back a little

it beggars belief that an organisation would behave the way the premier league does.

warring members battling for their own interests rather than working together for the greater good of the whole.

i know, i know, it's just the way businesses work.

With the media narrative being that it's all Manchester City's fault