You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Media discussion - 2024/25
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
That’s where we disagree my friend. A loophole (at least to me) is a term in a contract that is exploited after its formation, by one of the parties, usually due to some ambiguity in the wording, which was plainly the case with Royle.And as you cogently pointed out a short while ago, when demolishing the argument that time-barring was a 'loophole', it was in UEFA's rules. The contract said that he would only get 6 months if we were a EFL side when he left. We'd handed back our PL share so we weren't a PL side at that point. That was the legal agreement and we enforced.
Whereas the time bar, and what it meant, would have been completely apparent to the parties at the outset and was a core term of the agreement between the club and UEFA. The scope and reach of the limitation period being clear. I know it was litigated by UEFA, but dishonestly so. Of course they fucking knew those charges were time barred. Are they acutely suggesting they couldn’t count?
Whereas with Royle, it was a bespoke term of the contract that was plainly open to interpretation. So legitimate to call that a loophole.
You could argue that but I'm not sure we were in a position to give £400k away that easily. By the end of that relegation season we reported a bank balance of £12,000 and a loss of nearly £14m.
And as you cogently pointed out a short while ago, when demolishing the argument that time-barring was a 'loophole', it was in UEFA's rules. The contract said that he would only get 6 months if we were a EFL side when he left. We'd handed back our PL share so we weren't a PL side at that point. That was the legal agreement and we enforced.
This is the wrong way round. We hadn't handed back our PL share when we sacked Royle. That was his point - he argued that we remained a PL club until we formally completed the share transfer whereby our membership of the PL ended. That usually happens at the end of June or the start of July in the summer after relegation.
City sacked Royle in the week after the final game of the previous season. The club argued that, because our relegation had been confirmed at that point, he'd failed to maintain our PL status and should therefore be treated as being dismissed with City as a second-tier club.
Without seeing the precise wording of the contract, I was surprised that Royle won at first instance. It seems to me that the position asserted by the club carried greater logic: if you're fired after getting promoted or keeping us in the PL, you get more compensation than if we sack you after getting relegated or not getting promoted.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Thanks Peter. I think I was getting mixed up with Nick de Marco's argument in the Leicester PSR appeal. In that case, I can see @gordondaviesmoustache's argument is a very valid one.This is the wrong way round. We hadn't handed back our PL share when we sacked Royle. That was his point - he argued that we remained a PL club until we formally completed the share transfer whereby our membership of the PL ended. That usually happens at the end of June or the start of July in the summer after relegation.
City sacked Royle in the week after the final game of the previous season. The club argued that, because our relegation had been confirmed at that point, he'd failed to maintain our PL status and should therefore be treated as being dismissed with City as a second-tier club.
Without seeing the precise wording of the contract, I was surprised that Royle won at first instance. It seems to me that the position asserted by the club carried greater logic: if you're fired after getting promoted or keeping us in the PL, you get more compensation than if we sack you after getting relegated or not getting promoted.
Prophet of Doom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 1,520
Exactly !! Nobody in the country would have considered City a PL club when we sacked Royle. Technically he was - but anybody suggesting City should have taken the moral high ground and paid him up is mental. Royle was trying to exploit a loophole which ultimately failed.This is the wrong way round. We hadn't handed back our PL share when we sacked Royle. That was his point - he argued that we remained a PL club until we formally completed the share transfer whereby our membership of the PL ended. That usually happens at the end of June or the start of July in the summer after relegation.
City sacked Royle in the week after the final game of the previous season. The club argued that, because our relegation had been confirmed at that point, he'd failed to maintain our PL status and should therefore be treated as being dismissed with City as a second-tier club.
Without seeing the precise wording of the contract, I was surprised that Royle won at first instance. It seems to me that the position asserted by the club carried greater logic: if you're fired after getting promoted or keeping us in the PL, you get more compensation than if we sack you after getting relegated or not getting promoted.
Football Management is a cruel business - but they are very well rewarded for the volatility.
That said, I know a lot about this case from people involved and City royally fucked up ( excuse the pun ). They jumped the gun with the sacking and were very surprised to win the appeal, even though most would think it correct as City in everybody’s minds were relegated when they sacked him.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
City instructed Kuits!Have a couple of urgent things to do so haven't read this yet, but, for anyone who's interested, you can find the Court of Appeal's Judgment in Manchester City Football Club Plc v Royle here.
City instructed Kuits!
Kuits were Franny's personal lawyers and, when he bought into the club, became the club's lawyers as well basically until Thaksin arrived. Bryan Bodek, the partner who dealt with the City stuff, was on the board for a while, as well.
When I was a recently qualified solicitor working in Manchester, Kuits were recruiting to find an assistant to help Bodek with the City work. I interviewed for it and was offered the job, but turned it down as it came with a 10% pay cut compared with what I was already on at the time.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Have a couple of urgent things to do so haven't read this yet, but, for anyone who's interested, you can find the Court of Appeal's Judgment in Manchester City Football Club Plc v Royle here.
Really enjoyed reading that. Agree completely with the Judgment, despite my previous view on the Judgment in the court below, but it reinforces my previously expressed view. Having won, City should have not pursued their costs imo. It’s clear from the Judgment that the Mercantile Court did not consider the prospective earnings point, and if an HHJ missed the point, then Royle, doubtless acting on legal advice, shouldn’t be criticised for pursuing it. It plainly was a huge distance from a frivolous claim based on the Judgment. Plus, he had no choice but to respond to the appeal.
The club won, and that should have been the end of it imo. It’s just a personal view, but it’s founded in the memories I have of (inter alia) Gillingham and Blackburn. I don’t expect everybody to agree.
Took a couple of further things from that. Learned a new word: propitiate. Like it.
And the judgment of Lord Justice Gage is what, word for word, mine would have said.
I agree with both judgments and have nothing to add.
Those ones always make me smile!
Edit: And you can see from that Judgment what a good operator Pannick is. Those guys are on another planet.
Last edited:
TonyColemansbagofapples
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2017
- Messages
- 3,552
Why? Exactly how many of our key players have they taken so far?Madrid, and the Spanish media that does their bidding, are old pros at planting “fishing expedition” stories about all of the best players in the world coming to them, especially Spanish players.
To be honest, they really are one of the most attractive clubs in the world and any player would be flattered to be courted by them.
However, the manner in which they “tap up” players is a disgrace. They constantly seek to entice players by showing interest, and then expect players to angle for a move. Then, they seek to get the players on the cheap…as they did with Mbappe!
Worst kept secret in the world was announce you’re interested when the player has 18 mos to 2 yrs left on his contract. Dangle the carrot with only a year to go and seek to get them on the cheap, with the threat that they’ll leave for nothing in 12 mos. Thereafter, a player just runs down his contract, knowing he will now be able to translate a good portion of any “non-transfer fee” into a signing bonus and fat contract.
It’s so transparent as to be ridiculous, yet they get away with it repeatedly.
Here’s hoping Rodri is settled and happy enough to sign a long term extension and eschew any untoward advances. The problem, of course, is that as he grows older, the PL becomes such a slog, whereas in Madrid he has sunshine, less games, less travel for Spain, and the ability to relax (or even be rested) in at least half the La Liga games they play!
If we can keep him until 32, it’ll be quite the achievement.