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

Chris in London said:
Don’t forget, a finding on the balance of probabilities is not necessarily anything more than a finding that something is 51% probable.

I imagine the tribunal started from the position that they assumed the PL acted in good faith for the betterment of the game rather than to nobble any particular club or clubs. And they were not persuaded of the contrary. But whether that was by the tightest of margins or by a very large distance we don’t know.

I suspect the timing and the language of some of the relevant emails caused their eyebrows to be raised , but as I say they obviously thought that, on balance and by a narrow margin, was not enough
Click to expand...

For very smart people they don’t come across very sharp here.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You have explained to me that the November amendments make the rules lawful from November,
Click to expand...
No I haven’t. I’ve said the PL have introduced measures which might be lawful. They appear to have removed the ingredients (perhaps save one) which made the rules unlawful. It remains to be seen whether the rules are actually unlawful.

Generally regulations do not have retrospective application. If you decide in 2025 that smoking in public is unlawful you can’t prosecute someone for doing that in 2024 (though Parliament can do what it wants, and if it specifically says “this law has retrospective effect” that’s the end of it. But the PL is not Parliament.)

I think, if I have understood you correctly, and I’m not sure I have, you are not distinguishing between actual retrospective effect and apparent retrospective effect. The former is where the law changes, so that an act that was not criminal at the time it was committed becomes criminal after the event. This is exceptionally rare for obvious reasons.

What is more common is something that looks like it has retrospective effect but doesn’t really when you analyse it properly. So for instance, the provision that permits a certain leeway to be given in relation to shareholder loans in the 21-24 period isn’t really retrospective, because it relates to assessments that are carried out from 2025 onwards. How you look at something historically and whether you retrospectively criminalise it are two different things

My apologies if I haven’t understood you correctly.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
tbf, they are billing far more than they did before Covid. I’d say plus 50% on average. It’s partly because of the increase in graduated fee (legal aid) rates, the first since (iirc) 2008 but also because of the backlog (Covid and pre-existing) and the ridiculously small number of criminal pupillages in the last fifteen years has meant as older criminal practitioners have retired they haven’t been replaced.

All this simply means there aren’t enough criminal barristers relative to the amount of work in the system, and so they are all ridiculously busy. Even pretty junior criminal barristers can bill £150k (before chambers rent) now from legal aid work, up from about £100k before Covid, but fuck me are they made to work for it.

I think a lot of enjoyment has gone out of that part of the profession.
Click to expand...
Not going to reply in detail so as to avoid derailing the thread* but the hours the best paid juniors put in makes their effective hourly rate unlawful as it is below national minimum wage


* and because I don’t like you
 
My supplemental question would be how can rules that à Tribunal say were Null and Void in their entirety from 2021 to Oct 2024 still be relied on because of a vote that took place in Nov 2024.

The PL cannot take action against shareholder loans in those years so they cannot implement the rules that were voted in Nov 2024. Surely that is unfair to other clubs.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
Not going to reply in detail so as to avoid derailing the thread* but the hours the best paid juniors put in makes their effective hourly rate unlawful as it is below national minimum wage


* and because I don’t like you
Click to expand...
The veracity of that statement depends on how you define ‘best paid’ and ‘juniors’. I know criminal juniors of ten years call who billed £250k plus in legal aid work last year. That works out at multiples times minimum wage.

Anyway, agree not to further derail (even though it’s an inherent feature of the thread!).

And I like you.
 
“Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,”.

So we can get to the high court but unlikely.

The new amended apt rules can’t be retrospectively applied to snare shareholder loans.

City did in theory win but it doesn't really matter as we have no midfield and its approaching collapse time -:)

What happens next is anyone guess then. We don’t really know anything about costs and we don’t know if city got the sponsorships through after APT1 partial or if anyone took advantage of the gap in between.

Yep all is well in this thread again.

Quick @halfcenturyup ask another question. If anyone can push the lawyers over the edge it will be you -:)
 
wolviedinho said:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,”.

So we can get to the high court but unlikely.

The new amended apt rules can’t be retrospectively applied to snare shareholder loans.

City did in theory win but it doesn't really matter as we have no midfield and its approaching collapse time -:)

What happens next is anyone guess then. We don’t really know anything about costs and we don’t know if city got the sponsorships through after APT1 partial or if anyone took advantage of the gap in between.

Yep all is well in this thread again.

Quick @halfcenturyup ask another question. If anyone can push the lawyers over the edge it will be you -:)
Click to expand...
Fuck off.

He promised not to.
 
CC1 said:
So, new rules are voted in & they can be backdated?? Opens up more options for challenging the PL if clubs are adversely affected surely??
Click to expand...

It sounds like the PL's position (from reading their own statement rather than what anyone says) is that the November 24 rules 'fix' the unlawfulness of the 2021-2024 rules. So then all contracts would still have been in accordance with those rules and don't need changed.

But that surely depends on the specific contracts and details, to determine how they were affected.

By that same logic, say for example were shareholder loans to be treated the same, you would expect clubs to then retrospectively have to pay them.

The whole thing sounds messy.

Surely the more sensible thing would be to treat it all as a fresh start, and deal with any claims for loss individually.
 
Coatigan said:
It sounds like the PL's position (from reading their own statement rather than what anyone says) is that the November 24 rules 'fix' the unlawfulness of the 2021-2024 rules. So then all contracts would still have been in accordance with those rules and don't need changed.,,
Click to expand...
quite so and City have challenged precisely that PL assertion through APT 2.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Good. Then I'll try again (you asked for it):

In the actual APT case, the rules were written in 2021, amended in February 2024, certain rules were found to be unlawful in October 2024 and so amendments written in November 2024 to (potentially) correct the unlawfulness. In February 2025, it was clarified that the October ruling meant the APT rules were null and void at that stage.

You have explained to me that the November amendments make the rules lawful from November, but my question is if those new lawful rules can be applied back to 2021/2024 so that the rules are now suddenly enforceable since inception?

I promise I won't ask any more stupid questions if you can explain that clearly to me :)
Click to expand...
That sounds like that is the PL's stance, yes.

Whether the panel of judges see it that way will depend on I guess in the first instance the November rules being declared lawful. Then thereafter whether they can be applied back to 2021, and what the impact is.

We still haven't seen any form of summary or statement from the club, and the one they read out on Sky on friday, seems to have vanished, if it ever really existed.
 
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