City launch legal action against the Premier League

TedofChume said:
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this but Martin Ziegler at The Times tweeted this in February 2024 (see image).

So these ATP rules were amended in November 2023 based on 12 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions. Obviously all 20 clubs voted, but only 60% voted for the change, yet it was passed.

Rule 14.10 states a 2/3 majority of those voting is required. 13 votes would be 65% and 14 votes is 70%. So you need 14 votes to pass these changes. If only 18 clubs had voted, then they would have had the 2/3 majority. Obviously, this is down to how you read that rule.

If what Ziegler reports is true, I would expect this to be a point raised in City's current claim. Whilst I can't see how City could lose this point, a skilled lawyer could argue otherwise.

It's a crucial point because regardless of whatever City claim in the 165 page document, it's a valid argument to put forward ie not frivolous at all. I'm pretty certain the defence can argue to strike out a claim if it is frivolous without actually hearing the case.

That then ensures that "disclosure" happens. This is where the current case could provide City with a lot of crucial evidence fighting the 115 charges and subsequently claiming substantial damages.

So this ATP rule change could hand City the initiative in a way they never expected?
Click to expand...
It is 2/3 of those that vote and abstentions are non votes.
 
TedofChume said:
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this but Martin Ziegler at The Times tweeted this in February 2024 (see image).

So these ATP rules were amended in November 2023 based on 12 votes for, 6 against and 2 abstentions. Obviously all 20 clubs voted, but only 60% voted for the change, yet it was passed.

Rule 14.10 states a 2/3 majority of those voting is required. 13 votes would be 65% and 14 votes is 70%. So you need 14 votes to pass these changes. If only 18 clubs had voted, then they would have had the 2/3 majority. Obviously, this is down to how you read that rule.

If what Ziegler reports is true, I would expect this to be a point raised in City's current claim. Whilst I can't see how City could lose this point, a skilled lawyer could argue otherwise.

It's a crucial point because regardless of whatever City claim in the 165 page document, it's a valid argument to put forward ie not frivolous at all. I'm pretty certain the defence can argue to strike out a claim if it is frivolous without actually hearing the case.

That then ensures that "disclosure" happens. This is where the current case could provide City with a lot of crucial evidence fighting the 115 charges and subsequently claiming substantial damages.

So this ATP rule change could hand City the initiative in a way they never expected?
Click to expand...
I assume an abstention is not a vote
 
I suspect we'll find nothing at all out. The question is whether the APD rules are enforceable. If they are not, the PL does not need even to remove these rules - it simply never enforces them in the event of a "breach". The situation is reminiscent of the retain and transfer regulations. As early as 1948 the football authorities were informed that the contract signed by players was unenforceable and, in fact, a waste of paper. The KC who represented the king informed the players' union that he would take a case on the matter for nothing but the union saw no point in going to court when the club involved gave way and granted the transfer (to save the principle?). This was the pattern for the next 15 years; clubs gave way and conceded the transfer when players persisted. Not until George Eastham's club insisted on retaining his registration after his contract expired did the courts become involved and declare the retain and transfer system to be unenforceable. And in fact it took a judgement in the Bosman case before the system vanished for good and all - and by that time Bosman himself was a penniless alcoholic. I doubt the PL would go to such extremes, if we win City might ensure that every club finds out about the ruling, but then again, maybe not.
 
projectriver said:
It is 2/3 of those that vote and abstentions are non votes.
Click to expand...
What if the majority abstain from voting? Say for example 14 abstain, 4 vote for and 2 against, does the vote still carry?
I thought the whole point was that 14 votes were required to carry a proposal?

I’m probably showing myself to being a bit thick though.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I suspect we'll find nothing at all out. The question is whether the APD rules are enforceable. If they are not, the PL does not need even to remove these rules - it simply never enforces them in the event of a "breach". The situation is reminiscent of the retain and transfer regulations. As early as 1948 the football authorities were informed that the contract signed by players was unenforceable and, in fact, a waste of paper. The KC who represented the king informed the players' union that he would take a case on the matter for nothing but the union saw no point in going to court when the club involved gave way and granted the transfer (to save the principle?). This was the pattern for the next 15 years; clubs gave way and conceded the transfer when players persisted. Not until George Eastham's club insisted on retaining his registration after his contract expired did the courts become involved and declare the retain and transfer system to be unenforceable. And in fact it took a judgement in the Bosman case before the system vanished for good and all - and by that time Bosman himself was a penniless alcoholic. I doubt the PL would go to such extremes, if we win City might ensure that every club finds out about the ruling, but then again, maybe not.
Click to expand...
Not realistic to think the PL could lose, leave the rules in and everyone just pretend to forget about the case.
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
What if the majority abstain from voting? Say for example 14 abstain, 4 vote for and 2 against, does the vote still carry?
I thought the whole point was that 14 votes were required to carry a proposal?

I’m probably showing myself to being a bit thick though.
Click to expand...
It is not 14 required. It is 2/3 and only subject to a quorate meeting
 
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.