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

[sir baconface]

I can only assume that either Masters has a good idea of what the Panels conclusions are going to be and has shaped APT accordingly or he has bet his career that it’s close enough to stop City filing suit again based on the Panels findings.

Either way, it looks like a hurried, scared, and unprofessional move to ram it down City’s throat.

I don’t go along with this being the act of headless chickens, as some are intimating.

It’s probable that they have re-framed APT provisions along UEFA lines and received expert counsel that this now makes them lawful (and non retro-active). Moreover, many of the clubs supporting them are likely to have flashed it past their own lawyers as it’s not in their interests for the PL to face potential action from City.

If they are confident, why play into City’s hands by deferring the changes?

There’s still stuff we haven’t seen but, in principle, and whether we like it or not, these don’t sound like the reckless actions of fuckwits.

 

[jrb]

You liar !! You`ve always called him a ‘****’. ;)

Can we stick to topic please. You now the rules.

Take your sex talk to PM’s. ;-)

 

[cheekybids]

I don’t go along with this being the act of headless chickens, as some are intimating.

It’s probable that they have re-framed APT provisions along UEFA lines and received expert counsel that this now makes them lawful (and non retro-active). Moreover, many of the clubs supporting them are likely to have flashed it past their own lawyers as it’s not in their interests for the PL to face potential action from City.

If they are confident, why play into City’s hands by deferring the changes?

There’s still stuff we haven’t seen but, in principle, and whether we like it or not, these don’t sound like the reckless actions of fuckwits.

I’ve wondered if the premier league have considered that the panel would be unlikely to change owner loans to include interest retrospectively if the majority of clubs vote for it.

But that’s the other clubs who I don’t give a fuvk about.

What about City & Etihad? What does this mean for our contracts?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’ve wondered if the premier league have considered that the panel would be unlikely to change owner loans to include interest retrospectively if the majority of clubs vote for it.

But that’s the other clubs who I don’t give a fuvk about.

What about City & Etihad? What does this mean for our contracts?

That's the only thing I could think of. Present the new vote to the tribunal as a fait accompli and hope it makes a difference. Not sure it makes any difference to a legal interpretation, but here we are. More of a faut accompli in my view. I would be surprised if the club don't seek an "injunction" to delay implementation of the new rules until the tribunal opines.

As for Etihad, that is the big question and the only reason for this challenge in the first place imho.

If the tribunal finds for City that the current APT rules as a whole are null and void, then Etihad sails through because, as we all know, the new APT rules won't be applied retroactively.

If the tribunal finds for the PL, then I suppose the PL will try to re-assess Etihad under the amended rules which won't make much difference as it was already assessed under the 2021 APT rules. The club, I imagine, would again challenge that approach.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[ufo]

His name is Ric Turner not David Pannick.

Rick’s mrs name is Tina ?

 

[cheekybids]

That's the only thing I could think of. Present the new vote to the tribunal as a fait accompli and hope it makes a difference. Not sure it makes any difference to a legal interpretation, but here we are. More of a faut accompli in my view. I would be surprised if the club don't seek an "injunction" to delay implementation of the new rules until the tribunal opines.

As for Etihad, that is the big question and the only reason for this challenge in the first place imho.

If the tribunal finds for City that the current APT rules as a whole are null and void, then Etihad sails through because, as we all know, the new APT rules won't be applied retroactively.

If the tribunal finds for the PL, then I suppose the PL will try to re-assess Etihad under the amended rules which won't make much difference as it was already assessed under the 2021 APT rules. The club, I imagine, would again challenge that approach.

Just a few thoughts.

Following this embarrassing defeat, City can now announce a lucrative Etihad deal that was previously unattainable. Meanwhile, other clubs must either convert loans to equity or secure future loans at market value, a choice they had previously avoided.

I bet City were laughing their heads off when they left the meeting. Their first comment was probably, 'The thick fuckers still don’t realise.”

Does this capture the essence better?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Following this embarrassing defeat, City can now announce a lucrative Etihad deal that was previously unattainable. Meanwhile, other clubs must either convert loans to equity or secure future loans at market value, a choice they had previously avoided.

I bet City were laughing their heads off when they left the meeting. Their first comment was probably, 'The thick fuckers still don’t realise.”

Does this capture the essence better?

Tbf, it depends on the decision of the tribunal. But I choose to believe @Vic on that issue, instead of all these sit-on-the-fence lawyers :)

 

[cheekybids]

Tbf, it depends on the decision of the tribunal. But I choose to believe @Vic on that issue, instead of all these sit-on-the-fence lawyers :)

The law & common sense & fairness don’t always correspond. However we know the panel gave the benefit of the doubt for the premier league motives but still ruled they were unfair. It seems likely in my uneducated opinion that they’ll allow the changes as it appears fair to those clubs & allow City’s sponsorship.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The law & common sense & fairness don’t always correspond. However we know the panel gave the benefit of the doubt for the premier league motives but still ruled they were unfair. It seems likely in my uneducated opinion that they’ll allow the changes as it appears fair to those clubs & allow City’s sponsorship.

I doubt they will accept compromises on matters of law and if they did, it would only be with the acceptance of both parties? I am not sure the club would accept that if they believe in their position (it could be they have a wider strategy than just Etihad). And even then, it would allow another party, say Villa, to challenge the lawfulness of the rules and the changes.

My uneducated opinion is that the tribunal has to make a judgment purely on the legal arguments put by the PL and the club. But I am happy to admit there is a very good chance I have no idea what I am talking about :)

 

[cheekybids]

I doubt they will accept compromises on matters of law and if they did, it would only be with the acceptance of both parties? I am not sure the club would accept that if they believe in their position (it could be they have a wider strategy than just Etihad). And even then, it would allow another party, say Villa, to challenge the lawfulness of the rules and the changes.

My uneducated opinion is that the tribunal has to make a judgment purely on the legal arguments put by the PL and the club. But I am happy to admit there is a very good chance I have no idea what I am talking about :)

They make a matter of law from a compromise..

It’s all void, the new rules are ok.