City launch legal action against the Premier League

[NZBlue]

Bit arrogant that pal.

There’s no date on it but if that was issued in Feb I now understand Stefan’s comment a bit more ie as there is no change in the new version issued July 24 then there’s either no decision from the hearing yet - or the PL have won because they’ve kept the APT rules the same.

All very confusing certainly.

No arrogance intended- just my humour. Maybe I should have put a :-)

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Maybe it was a score draw, or they are waiting for VAR to check? KC was offside in the build-up? Give it another couple of weeks .....

Let’s hope it wasn’t abandoned and we’re waiting for the ‘pools panel eh?

 

[CC1]

No arrogance intended- just my humour. Maybe I should have put a :-)

if I could summarise that document I’d understand the issues more :-)

Let’s hope that as there are no changes in the latest version - according to Stefan - that the decision hadn’t been reached at time of publication - rather than the PL have won the recent hearing.
Strange no leaks about the outcome from the tainted media

 

[petrusha]

It seems pretty clear to me then that we have either lost, or there has been no decision, or we have won.

I think you've covered all bases there.

I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.

 

[cheekybids]

I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.

Maybe it’s the result City expects & like with UEFA being bypassed to CAS we are showing early that if there any funny business / corrupt decisions around our sponsors it will lead to us suing.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.

I agree but think that, even in that case, the panel would have to make a determination in relation to any specific instances of its implementation that we may have complained about and that might lead to a consequent compensation claim

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.

It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.

So it might not be quite as black and white as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.

It seems to me that is the most likely outcome.

In this FFP age, I don't think anyone can complain about income having to be within the realm of a reasonable fair value whether we are talking about related parties, associated parties or neither, in fact. The questions are how is that fair value determined and what are the consequences? And this is where the PL will struggle with the February changes, imho.

 

[SilverFox2]

The rules are what the cartel want them to appear to be, ideally by interpretation so vagueness rules to roost.

Similar to the actual "on the field rules" which can be ignored or observed to the letter if aimed at City.

 

[pride in battle]

So basically City want our Sponsors ie Etihad etc to be able to pay as much as they want but the Premier League want it regulated so the sponsorship will be market value and not inflated ?
If so I can't see how City will win the case ?

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Funny how nobody mentions the 'sportswashing' done at Sheffield United.... I wonder if it might be because they're shit and haven't upset the apple cart.

100%.

"Clear & Obvious"

Khaldoon al Mubarak.