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

Blueknows said:
And yesterday's vote by 20 club reps took 32? minutes lol
Click to expand...
hihi I don't know. Did it? I am actually NOT AT ALL that well informed about how that institution works. While doing this I am also very much preoccupied with other things. And that has been so for a long while. Rest assured that I . D O . understand most of you here might be greatly preoccupied with matters pertaining to football and your club. But my life just isn't such and hasn't been for a great while.

ps Would 32 minutes be short or long then?
pps And does it include other formal procedures? lol
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't underestimate yourself Half Century. I always take note of your respected posts.
 
As the result was known before the vote & the vote is meaningless if the panel decide, was it actually a vote of confidence for Masters?
 
"The purpose of the APT rules is to ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at fair market value by virtue of relationships with associated parties.” This, quite clearly, was not the aim of the APT rules because the PL willingly acted to exclude interest free loans from owners as demanded by (at least) one of the clubs enjoying such loans. Even more blatantly the PL thus empowered itself to deem City's sponsorship deal with Etihad, which was never by any stretch of the imagination an RPT, an APT and subject it to FMV tests, which apparently took far too long to decide. Owner loans were not to be considered APTs, or inexplicably RPTs . It is hard to argue that clubs did not benefit from such loans, not at FMV by virtue of relationships with associated parties! The aim of the regulations seems to be the exact opposite of that stated.

These regulations were found to be unlawful on these grounds and the clubs have benefitted from them for some considerable time. Other clubs have had to live with these regulations since their introduction. Yet the PL has amended its rules to meet the published award of the IPC only by giving dates in the future when these loans will pay interest at FMV. The IT did not say that their award made the rules unlawful from the day of its publication: it said the rules were simply unlawful, and as the law had not changed they must have been unlawful when introduced. Either the clubs pay the total interest which should have been incurred or compensation is due to City. Nor does the argument that clubs were only obeying the regulations put in place by the PL carry any weight. They lobbied for the exemption in full knowledge it was unfair and discriminatory. "Just obeying orders" never carried much weight!

It may be that the full award has not been published, as Vic says, because the IT left time for full consultation on amendments. The PL clearly had no intention of any serious discussion. City's reaction to the proposals was to inform all 19 clubs and the PL that they considered the amendments also unlawful. We know 3 clubs took the same view. The PL's reaction was no discussion but the summoning of a meeting of PL turkeys who were not to vote for Christmas. This followed an angry dismissal of City's concerns. No consultation with their leading critic. The tyranny of the majority forever!

So, at the moment the PL may be feeling pleased with itself, the cartel thinks it has got its way (as usual?) and nothing has changed. But City have reminded everyone, and may remind them again in the very near future, that in England we live under the rule of law, and that patience may be wearing very thin with a PL that shows nothing but arrogant contempt for that law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.