City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

[chesterguy]

Surely the point is the IC have said the APT rules up until November 2024 are Null and Void therefore shoukd not have existed. Therefore any decisions taken by the PL using those APT rules are therefore also Null and Void. So if any club can show that any sponsorships were reduced or refused by the PL in those circumstances could sue for loss of income. I understand that City had the Etihad and FADB deals affected by those rules so getting those reinstated would be a huge win to City

The IC has yet to rule on the APT rules voted on in November but those rules have not yet affected any club that we are aware.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Still think all this shite is a legal Trojan horse for the 115 case.

Perfidious PL yer 'onour

 

[meltonblue]

Not sure why some people are piling on @slbsn, when all he’s done is give his considered opinion on these matters. You may not agree with him, but let’s keep it civil and respectful please.

Well said. Microcosm of the current world, this thread at times!

 

[bluemonkey71]

Conspiracy theory

We were very optimistic about 115/130 so we decided to pull the PLs pants down on the rules after they investigated us for years. They accused us of breaking certain rules so we decided to pull apart their rules to make them look even more stupid.

Shall I put my crack pipe down now?

 

[Vic]

I’m wondering how this reflects on Murray Rosen, he has been taking forward action against clubs (Everton, Leicester) based on flawed rules. Aa a lawyer with a considerable reputation particularly in sports law should he not have been more aware of the possibility that they were flawed and cautioned the Premier League accordingly? As Chair of the Premier Leagues’s Judicial Committee, does he not take responsibility for deciding whether and when cases are taken forward?

A lot of "sports lawyers" should be embarrassed.

 

[Bluechipblue]

He’s (Martin) always took a step back and looked at the bigger picture.
He doesn’t follow the crowd or use clickbait headlines.
His pieces are always well thought out and well written.
Look at all these clowns finally now saying FFP/PSR is all about protecting clubs at the top.
He (and us) was saying it from day one.

This^^^^
If Martin Samuel criticises us for anything, I would genuinely take what he says on board. Doesn't mean I would agree, but would recognise he is applying his own unbiased view, and not pandering to a certain cartel.

 

[Bluescholar]

1. No. The PL position is that the November fixed the unlawfulness and, in effect, should be seen as a total re-write and are therefore in place. APT 2 will have to go ahead if that is their position.
2. No. I don't think he is.

Total rewrite of now deemed unlawful laws? And it won't go ahead while there's another legal challenge,they'll look even more stupid risking losing again,minimum to proceed would be another stakeholders vote,and I'm sure they'll want to wait for the outcome of the new legal challenge before just saying Yes we have every confidence in the Premier leagues rules now! Legal battles cost money,football clubs hate losing it.

 

[slbsn]

After the original hearing where a governing body were deemed to have implemented rules that were illegal and unfair, you suggested the governing body could rightfully claim victory.

In what world do you think you got that right?

I've explained above. This was a big win for the PL. It effectively said APT was legitimate (and necessary) if constructed correctly. The Tribunal also rejected things like this "We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any clubthat might use APTs."

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Lovely news to wake up to. Masters is an utter joke, surely the puppet of the red shirts has to go?

 

[arbabarshad]

Read quite a few posts from the most active legal mind on here and it seems City's legal team is working to a different level both in terms of knowledge and expertise. Not only that, City''s legal team seems to be working to a plan rather than a win on one set of rules only. A win, any win (null and void is big) in the APT 1 and potentially APT2 are only small wins in the overall plan.

Legal mind says he does not/did not have the full information of the case as City's team does/did.
Legal mind is also guessing what City's legal teams aims are in their challenges of APT 1 and APT 2. The guesses are based on limited knowledge therefore prone to be incorrect.

Perhaps, it is right for the legal mind to enlighten supporters based on his knowledge of the legalities involved but i think specifics/judgemental comments i.e. not win, slight win could be avoided and save a lot of questions on his expertise and intentions.

Another point re Forest / Everton or compensation issue:

If Forest were deducted points, they will have gone down in premium league table which would mean less money. If any of the other clubs who had Shareholder loans but weren't taken into account for PSR calculations, and if taken into account may have ended up with a points deduction ans subsequently fallen to a position below forest, then forest would have lost out on income all as a result of unlawful/void rules. This may amount to a valid compensation claim.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Be honest. Have you actually read both the decisions in full?

Are you saying it's a Pyrrhic victory ? or it's a significant stepping stone to a major victory ie a blank cheque for futrure sponsorships ? Alternatively, are we just retaliating because of 115. What do you think our objectives are re the APT legal actions, is it 'just' to get the 10 year deal with Etihad signed of in it's entirety ie Including the 'elevator' increments for the latter years.

 

[slbsn]

Are you saying it's a Pyrrhic victory ? or it's a significant stepping stone to a major victory ie a blank cheque for futrure sponsorships ? Alternatively, are we just retaliating because of 115. What do you think our objectives are re the APT legal actions.

It 100% is not a blank cheque. APT is here to stay.

 

[chesterguy]

I don’t think anyone is claiming that APT rules should not exist but that they must be lawful. Up to November 2024 they should not have existed as they were unlawful unfair and so are null and void. We await the IC verdict on whether the rules from November 2024 are lawful.

What seems to be clear though is that from 2021 to 2024 there were no lawful APT rules so if anyone had their income streams affected by the PL using those rules could sue

 

[Nightmare Walking]

I've explained above. This was a big win for the PL. It effectively said APT was legitimate (and necessary) if constructed correctly. The Tribunal also rejected things like this "We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any clubthat might use APTs."View attachment 146761

So you're saying that the Premier League had big wins while City had a slight win? Yet the rules that were in place for a few years are now null and void? Please make this make sense.

 

[johnny crossan]

It 100% is not a blank cheque. APT is here to stay.

I thought the PL was following UEFA RP rules next season?

 

[Revolver]

From what I read and hear Martin Samuel is the only person who ever puts City’s point of view across (and he’s not a City fan).

It’s a crying shame he doesn’t go on Talksport etc. Of course they won’t have him on because he may expose this witch hunt and the hypocrisy.

The red audience wouldn’t want that.

 

[slbsn]

So you're saying that the Premier League had big wins while City had a slight win? Yet the rules that were in place for a few years are now null and void? Please make this make sense.

Overall it was a slight win for City because the PL had some significant wins. Not that complicated. A big win for City would have been APT being unlawful by object ie incapable of coming back in any form. City didn't get that.

 

[GSW Blue]

It 100% is not a blank cheque. APT is here to stay.

I wouldn’t be so sure. At this point I’m not 100% the Premier League will still be going in 10 years let alone any form of FFP!

 

[slbsn]

I thought the PL was following UEFA RP rules next season?

No - postponed. But FMV exists in the UEFA rules too.

 

[Silva2021]

That is because, with respect, you don't understand what the decision said. Whilst I think the PL have made a mess of handling the situation, they are broadly right that they can quite easily get to a set of rules on APT that will be lawful. There is a chance the November rules are not quite lawful given the lack of retrospective action on shareholder loans but I can't see where that takes City either way.

If you think this means the end of APT, I'm afraid I completely disagree.

I agree with you and I’m not sure where the real gain will be.

I see advantage, we’ve embarrassed the Prem could get some damages/ legal paid for etc. Also we have stood up for ourselves. Will they think twice (or three times) before aiming anything at us again.

We may also find some support from other Prem teams who not alligned with the more established and want an end to litigation and PL legal fees.

The question I feel is if these APT are claimed unlawful will there be a gap or whether PL will find a way to cover it with new rules.