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

[halfcenturyup]

Only if the ability to re-up it now those rules were found unlawful was gone. And City have a duty to take action to minimise any loss.

Yes, pretty clear any loss would be minimal. As you have pointed out many times, Etihad is still on the shirt so there has been some sort of "deal" for 24/25. If the club was 20 million cash short for a year because of this, any financial claim would be small.

I am much more interested in what the club's bigger picture is, if they want to continue with APT2. There must be one ....

 

[slbsn]

Maybe, but I/you would need to know a lot more than we do to claim it with certainty.

In this case, you might be able to model their margins, but wouldn't know what transfer targers they might have or how much they would cost, for example, or if they are within thise margins.

Well they don't seem very bothered because they don't seem to have converted the shareholder loans before the 11 Jan deadline so are now incurring FMV interest.

 

[Coatigan]

Ok - don't agree with the bits I understand of this but we don't have to agree.

I also acknowledge I could be wrong in how I read it. Like you, I am giving a considered opinion based on my understanding and my own logic. I am also distilling down to principles rather than detail (which is beyond me in fairness).

I also btw do appreciate you are responding to multiple ongoing posts, at pace, and multiple people, and various tones, which I get is draining.

 

[slbsn]

Sorry, but I have to disagree on two points:

1) This is not a win for the PL AT ALL! They are always perfectly within their rights to create the rules and regs by which the PL conducts its business. This case was about whether this specific rule & reg was legal. It was not.

2) The PL deemed that decision limited in its scope and determined it could quickly reconstitute APT2 and get it passed to make it LOOK like the victory it was not. It remains to be seen if APT2 is legal or simply reconstituted fruit from the poisonous tree.

As for the targeting issue, I feel like that was an argument that was always going to be difficult to win unless there was specific language, either included in the reg or openly discussed, that supported such targeting. That whole section of the Hearing brought some unflattering comments to light, made the point that there were indeed words spoken, but could not prove such language was present in the regs, or the reasoning behind them. However, while we didn’t win that fight, we certainly gave them a black eye.

I’m not sure if it’s because I haven’t heard or read everything you’ve said or written on this issue, but you seem to be going out of your way to appear evenhanded, perhaps to the point of straying slightly over the line in the opposite direction…if that direction is to be in opposition to the club for whom you used to work. Forgive me if my brief survey of your viewpoint overstates that “over evenhandedness.”

I think part of the problem is I have actually read the decisions.

 

[cheekybids]

Do you ever wonder if maybe you don't understand how loss works in claims?

The whole strategy of ATP is to stop City winning everything & making more money.

Maybe City can claim they were unable to bolster their squad by shattering wage structures for top class players. If soft signals are signing Haaland up after getting approval, it shows we didn’t negotiate until we were certain.

We’ve missed out on Mbappe & Bellingham…. ;) but I’m sure there’s a database of players.

We’ve since seen a team age & go from the best team in the world to struggling which will affect revenue which was the intention.

 

[chesterguy]

Do you ever wonder if maybe you don't understand how loss works in claims?

I do recognise that by yesterday’s victory any club can now sue the PL should they feel that any deals which had been rejected by the PL under the APT rules. I agree that the club has to provide evidence about what those losses are but the principle is there.

None of us know what the level of those claims might be but the IC have confirmed those claims can now be pursued by any club which feels it was affected

That is a HUGE loss to the PL

 

[slbsn]

The whole strategy of ATP is to stop City winning everything & making more money.

Maybe City can claim they were unable to bolster their squad by shattering wage structures for top class players. If soft signals are signing Haaland up after getting approval, it shows we didn’t negotiate until we were certain.

We’ve missed out on Mbappe & Bellingham…. ;) but I’m sure there’s a database of players.

We’ve since seen a team age & go from the best team in the world to struggling which will affect revenue which was the intention.

None of this is either due to APT or claimable.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I'm not sure I understand that response. We know the PL found issues with the two deals, under a set of rules that have just been found to be unlawful in whole, not just in part. It doesn't matter whether it was later years or not, our submitted agreements were rejected.

I can understand the argument that technically we've lost nothing if these were future-dated agreements (and we know they had to be approved before we could claim them, rather than retrospectively) but we don't know the timing of these. Nor do we know whether they'll be accepted at a future date. That's just complete speculation. The facts on the ground are that two agreements were rejected, either in whole or in part.

So it seems to me that we either get these agreements accepted (which is a speculative view) or we claim the difference between what was accepted and what wasn't under those now unlawful rules. Things like speeding and parking tickets get cancelled and penalties get refunded because the circumstances in which they were imposed broke the rules that existed at the time they were imposed. Happened to me last year, where a penalty was imposed unlawfully.

And I also don't understand your notion that we'd somehow "sell the collateral [for the FAB sponsorship] to someone else". Again, that's potentially possible (I don't agree it's likely) but pure speculation on your part.

I sometimes wonder if you've spent too much time on Talksport and have fallen into their habit of saying things just to be contrary or get a reaction.

Didnt slbsn also think we had a slim chance of winning this case when it was first announced. As good as he is, he does get some things wrong ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

The tone is funereal. Did they change into black during the ad break?

The club really said all that in a statement? Good Lord.

I would like to see that ......

 

[Marvin.]

Ok - don't agree with the bits I understand of this but we don't have to agree.

The award is explicitly in City's favour. I head half of it and have read enough to understand this to be so. The rules have subsequently been amended and are being contested again. In that sense the victory is partial, but the Premier League have been shown to be allowing one set of clubs to make significant borrowings below market cost whilst restricting another clubs business activity. This behaviour has been persistent and they have been steadfast in this. They are now exposed and should resign, and all actions initiated by the PL executive are now tainted.

 

[slbsn]

I do recognise that by yesterday’s victory any club can now sue the PL should they feel that any deals which had been rejected by the PL under the APT rules. I agree that the club has to provide evidence about what those losses are but the principle is there.

None of us know what the level of those claims might be but the IC have confirmed those claims can now be pursued by any club which feels it was affected

That is a HUGE loss to the PL

It is a Tribunal not an IC. And it said nothing about claims.

Very few deals were ever rejected but in theory claims can come. But they need to show loss. Not headlines, loss.

 

[surprisedbygrass]

The point Stefan & others are missing is one which underpins all capitalist societies... The markets set the rates.

1. We've won 6 out of the last 7 PL's.

2. We've amassed the most top flight points ever.

3. We've scored the most top flight goals in a season.

4. We're the first club to complete the domestic treble & quadruple.

5. We're only the second club to win the three major trophies in one season in English football (treble).

6. We're the first club in English football to win four top flight titles on the trot.

7. We are the current CWC Champions, & are represented at the expanded tournament in June.

Taking into account this has never been done before in the history of English football, by what metric are the PL using to gauge what level of sponsorship City should be entitled to negotiate?

The PL marked down our sponsorships, but then refused to allow us to examine the historical sponsorship data they used to determine if our deals represented fair market value.

In respect to APT 2.0, how can they show metrics valuing City's sponsorship potential, after several record breaking feats which have never been achieved before? Surely we're breaking new ground?

Yes, the PL can say there needs to be an element of APT to protect the integrity of football in terms of Newcastle rocking up with a £1bn per season sponsorship deal from the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund, when the last time they won a major trophy was the 2006 Intertoto Cup, & the last time before that was the Inter Cities Fairs Cup in the 60s.

But even this is fraught with danger if ever legally challenged. Sponsorship, just like transfers are only worth what someone's willing to pay, so how does a third party reach an arbitrary figure of what they think is "fair market value"? Isn't this between the seller & the buyer?

The PL can only do this in their private members club where they make the rules. This is why part of the PL's rules states that only disputes about tribunal procedures can be argued in a court of law. All their other bullshit rules wouldn't even get to trial because they contravene British law.

This is the next logical step for APT & PSR. Neither are even close to UK Law & the PL know this, hence their mortal fear of the government introducing IREF.

If I were City & ever found guilty of FFP or PSR, I'd accept it if the UK Government made it a law which governed ALL sectors of UK industry. It could be argued that no one forced City to agree to the PL's rules, but then we could argue we had little choice but to sign up to these restrictive practices, otherwise we'd have no business & would lose access to the CL.

The cartel clubs are evidently prepared to burn down the PL, if it stops Manchester City. However, it's a legal can of fucking worms of the cartel's own making, if City & others think "Fuck this! We've had enough of only being here to make up the numbers. We also want to regularly challenge for all the top trophies"!

FFP, PSR & APT were designed to protect the hegemony of the legacy clubs. If the PL continue down this path, they'll soon pass the point where they'll be able to put the lawsuit genie back in the bottle.

This says it all . It's a racket . What other industry deliberately hobbles it's best asset and tries to ruin it's record breaking brand leader in a competitive global market place . The PL will stagnate in a legal swamp, other leagues will dominate and they brought it all on themselves. Deserve everything they get .

If they'd had the sense they were born with they'd have accepted the CAS verdict, but instead they tried to ruin a winning brand with the 115 after City backed the call for an independent regulator , meaning the gloves were off and City has no choice but to go independently legal on the other stuff , exposing shareholder loans exemptions to the harsh light of day . FFP is now being shown up for nothing more than a legally unsound restrictive practice on some clubs and not others .

Who are the cheats now ?

 

[Paladin]

No disrespect from me friend, Stefan is working hard tonight. Not heard from Chris in London, Petrushka or GDM yet though have we? As for the BBC hit squad I find it amusing that Cyrano & Banned Roan penned that piece - looks like the cartel propaganda pipe is leaking.

Your posts are always thoughtfully considered, and that comment definitely wasn't aimed at you. I just tagged it on to a reply to you.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Yes

Hi Stefan, a question if I may. City seemed unhappy with the prems application of apt and specifically the model and company used to decide on fmv , and marking down sponsorships. Are you saying all those rules on apt and fmv are still legal? Seems to me that apt/fmv is contrary to uk law and IA24 account protocol?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

We all knew that the Red tops were a law to themselves, now it’s been proven.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Well, fuck me. I go to bed early one night and all hell breaks loose. I should do it more often :)

A few thoughts.

This latest judgment vindicates those that suggested this was likely. You know who you are.

It's not fair to point at people who honestly thought this wasn't likely. It's all just opinions and it's up to the individual to weigh them up and believe them or not.

It's very fair to point and laugh at people who take the word of the PL as gospel. That includes 98% of the press.

Nick de Marco playing the lawyer game: I didn't say this at the time, but it was obvious this was going to happen. I have more respect for people who give their opinion at the time, even if turns out to be wrong, than bullshit like that.

The only winner here is City. The ten year Etihad deal now presumably sails through.

If I were Newcastle, I would sign some major new sponsorships right now. APT2 will now likely be found in City's favour as well and so there will be a short period before the PL make their new APT rules (if they have the strength) during which they can make their "APT" deals unhindered.

I can't see any significant claim against the PL for this, other than costs. The win is getting Etihad through.

There is no effect on United. This is nothing to do with PSR. Yet!

Martin Samuel may be spot on, but he is a little premature with his Everton and Forest comments. PSR isn't null and void (yet) but I will say this. He was clearly briefed by City after the first APT judgment. If he is being briefed by City now and coming to the conclusion PSR may be in trouble, then it's all about to get very interesting.

Not sure what the club does about APT2 now. They have got what they wanted. Continue as a matter of principle? Continue just to show the PL who's boss?

Now that APT has been kicked out, and the tribunal agreed that APT was a vital part of PSR, will the club move to get PSR declared null and void? That would be some end game.

Just a few thoughts. As you were.

My man.

 

[cheekybids]

None of this is either due to APT or claimable.

We’ll see….. It won’t be the first time an organisation is sued for a hypothetical loss.

Yes, pretty clear any loss would be minimal. As you have pointed out many times, Etihad is still on the shirt so there has been some sort of "deal" for 24/25. If the club was 20 million cash short for a year because of this, any financial claim would be small.

I am much more interested in what the club's bigger picture is, if they want to continue with APT2. There must be one ....

Etihad is on the shirt but it will have affect our financial planning if we didn’t know we would get the full amount.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

 

[Tim of the Oak]

BBC's story doing all it can to try and side with the premier league

For info, Radio 5 Live’s main sports headline is emphatic, that we’ve beaten the Prem.

 

[christened at st marks]

If clubs sue for APT, what can we get for damages to reputation if we win 115, ! billion, 2bln close the bastards down and start again