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

[jrb]

Stefan on the latest 93:20 pod seemed to say that City have won the position they want which is a return to the pre February rules and the rest is pretty much bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[halfcenturyup]

just listening to these successive podcast extracts from Stefan he makes the Soviet revisionists look like beginners

I'm not sure City care one jot about interest on shareholder loans, other than as a tool to get what they really want: the Etihad contract operative in full.

I thought the question being asked to the tribunal was if the current rules are null and void until a complete set of new rules are approved, or whether they can simply be corrected by amending the existing rules? Makes a big difference to the treatment of the Etihad transaction, I think. There could have been additional questions, such as the transition arrangements if APT isn't currently null and void .....

Stand to be corrected by people who know more about it than I do, of course.

 

[Stoned Rose]

If I were to summarise, I think the PL now think they are finished with this. Certain parts of the rules were unlawful, but the rest, they say, continued in place. The new rules correct the unlawful parts and so they think they can now re-assess the Etihad deal under the adjusted rule set which, as the unlawful parts didn't affect the original assessments particularly, they can come to the same conclusion that it is still overvalued. This assumes the PL's position on the old rules is confirmed by the tribunal.

Assuming that City started this whole rigmarole to get the Etihad deal through, then I think City are confident in their legal position that the rules are still null and void. In this case the Etihad deal sails through unchecked and the recently approved rules become null and void, and a whole new ruleset will have to be approved later. As a result, the club will, in the words of the great bard, have won "the greatest victory since the Winchester flower arranging team beat Harrow by 12 sore bottoms to 1!".

But why did the correspondence between the two parties get so vitriolic for a vote that is actually pretty irrelevant as I doubt it changes the tribunal's forthcoming judgment at all.

There is still a nagging question in the back of my mind about whether City may have bigger fish to fry. If they are successful in voiding the APT rules for the treatment of shareholder loans, then maybe they can challenge the lawfulness of FFP/PSR for the same reason (this could be the reason why the club seemed to have accepted, or at least didn't oppose strongly, that the APT rules were a vital part of FFP - something that always surprised me). And if FFP/PSR is null and void since inception it gives the PL an enormous headache for many reasons. Not the least of which is that FFP wouldn't have existed through 2018, and the 115 allegations would fall apart. For those saying they would still be serious allegations, consider this: without FFP, there would be no sporting advantage to the club even if all the 115 allegations were proven. They would only be administrative breaches and breaches of good faith and so would only be subject to a fine.

That would explain the aggression shown by each of the two sides, trying to protect their positions in the bigger picture.

I am reasonably sure paragraphs one and two are pretty accurate but the rest is purely speculative, of course. Please shoot it down if you think it's complete bollocks. I have no problem being told I am talking bollocks, which is just as well. It happens a lot :)

Your posts on this topic are always quality HCU. Well in mate.

 

[johnny crossan]

I'm not sure City care one jot about interest on shareholder loans, other than as a tool to get what they really want: the Etihad contract operative in full.

I thought the question being asked to the tribunal was if the current rules are null and void until a complete set of new rules are approved, or whether they can simply be corrected by amending the existing rules? Makes a big difference to the treatment of the Etihad transaction, I think. There could have been additional questions, such as the transition arrangements if APT isn't currently null and void .....

Stand to be corrected by people who know more about it than I do, of course.

Pretty clear what City believe - "The Club has succeeded with its claim: the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules have been found to be unlawful and the Premier League’s decisions on two specific MCFC sponsorship transactions have been set aside"
& the Panel for that matter:
(iv) that the PL’s decision with regard to the EAG Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not give MCFC an opportunity to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis prior to reaching its decision and for no other reason;
(v) that the PL’s decision with regard to the FAB Transaction was reached in a procedurally unfair manner and must be set aside because the PL did not provide MCFC, prior to the PL’s Final Determination, with the Databank transactions entered into by other clubs, which the Board referred to in its Final Determination and for no other reason;

https://www.mancity.com/meta/media/wzmfdwtn/partial-final-award-p-164-redacted.pdf

 

[halfcenturyup]

Your posts on this topic are always quality HCU. Well in mate.

Thanks for the compliment, but no :)

I am just a man on the Clapham omnibus joining what I think are potentially dots. You should all be listening to the actual lawyers on here.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The only inexplicable thing is Nick Harris.

 

[KS55]

Thanks for the compliment, but no :)

I am just a man on the Clapham omnibus joining what I think are potentially dots. You should all be listening to the actual lawyers on here.

The man on the Clapham omnibus is, as we all know, the final arbiter in The Common Law System. Beats Napoleonic codes to a cocked hat. Lawyers?…Pah!
(Just joking learned friends.)

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

"As ever, he says it supports his position. On its own, it is the opposite."

Pretty much most of Magic Nicks posting history on this.

 

[SilverFox2]

No point, I'd say

Is it fair to say City have got most of what they wanted before the Panel decision so opposing the PL vote was simply to ensure that the 90 percent win occurred before the result.
The Panel result may give us more but not at the risk of losing any of the gains and all we lose is a pawn of a vote for delay which the media distorts as expected to a comprehensive City defeat.

 

[ShakesSpeare]

My opinion in short. Individuals who run the Premier League organization from behind the scenes want to make Man City fail. They are using that organization to employ illegal means by which to constrain Man City and their owners. Then they sell those illegal means as a "smart, good and English" policy to the rest of the Premier League clubs. It is basically an ethnic, English-based cartel type a thing. And they commonly invoke racist overtones. People can think what they want about foreign ownership and foreign owners but those things are not illegal.

Given that vote it seems to be that Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest are the only clubs in the league satisfying these two conditions:

1. Want things to work in accordance to law and don't want illegal means to be used.

2. Their representatives at the Premier League level are actually representing their club's interests.

3. Their representatives at the Premier League level have guts to represent their club's interests.

So that the issue now becomes who makes the actual votes at the Premier League level on behalf of individual clubs. How is that institution organized?* Are there discussions?* Who is present?* How does voting take place?* How is information distributed?* Who controls the public relations or media for that organization?* Is it just an individual or is there an office/administration?*

* All of these are very, very important when it comes to things like corruption. Parliament is an institution with its own very visible and very precisely and clearly designed set of rules and procedures. And people are STILL greatly dissatisfied with how Parliament works. So that you can imagine just hoooooow corrupt an organization like this is and can be.

I made a HUGE omission in that post. There is also #4 and those would be clueless English clubs/owners/their-representatives who are kept clueless and don't know and don't understand how they are used.

And that's really what Man City is doing. Their struggle against the Premier League is also a struggle for that thing called the Rule of Law. Man City is USING LAW to fight CORRUPTION and LAWLESSNESS.

And promoting the Rule of Law also always means to promote the spread of KNOWLEDGE. People must know what is going on. And people must understand what is going on. Those things are required for people to fish out corruption. Corruption always works on very, very actively obscuring those things as well as on fighting those who know and who fight for spreading that knowledge.