PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Alaricmc said:
Quite some years ago (as far back as the UEFA case against us and long before the Premier League charges) I posted several detailed arguments about the litigation being ill-founded. Why? Because competition law (European and British) prevents "abuse of a dominant position" and "anti-competitive practices". It seemed odd to me at the time (though since then I've come to be wise to the anti-Arab investor, pro (disgraced) US investor stance, particularly at the Express and the Telegraph, and most notably the Guardian) that point never seemed to be made.

There are perhaps 100 - maybe 500 - maybe even 5,000 - more experienced commercial lawyers in the country than me, but I know my onions. Under pressure from the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and the Levy team, the Premier League was blackmailed into introducing regulations thet they knew to be unenforceable. Abuse of a dominant position. Anti-competitive. Read the judgement and see how many times those phrases appear, Nyah, nyah. Told you so.

Damage control from the Premier League is risible. They can change the rules by club vote to align with the verdict? Yes, they can. But that's for the future, not the past. We can still sue them for the two lost sponsorship deals. And we should.

In my 5,001st ranked commercial lawyer's experience, every possible allegation gets thrown into the pot. Why? To complicate. To confuse. Invented by me - the Premier League are puppets of Putin - just look at this memo supporting Russian involvement in European competitions. But these things are careful distractions. Although they allow the other party to claim victory in insigniicant areas.

Two things were important for us. Those two things were the only arguments we needed to win. And we won both. The rules on associated party transactions are anti-competitive and an abuse by the Premier League of a dominant position. And undercover funding (see Arsenal, Liverpool, the Levy club and Manchester United - we have none) by shareholder loans claiming to be 'repayable' are now part of any FFP assessment.

Anti-competitive practices.

Abuse of a dominant position.

(Hides under cover) Toldja so.
Click to expand...
Rag
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Rag
Click to expand...
95zedb.jpg
 
halfcenturyup said:
You say that, but even with the "coincidence" of the timing and the Newcastle correspondence, the panel didn't find that the new rules were aimed at a particular group of clubs, largely iirc because a PL lawyer testified that the rules were in consideration for a long time and weren't targeted at Newcastle.

I think if there is any connection to the 115 case at all it is the confirmation, yet again, that witness evidence trumps circumstantial evidence. That can only be good for the club on the 115 case.
Click to expand...

I thought exactly the same. All the evidence is there was corruption & yet they are happy to conclude everyone acts with the best intention. Stefan has always said they’d have to find it that way in the 115.
 
chesterbells said:
Been away from news all day, but catching up via this thread it all sounds positive news, but Radio Manchester headlines at 6, and then with Simon Stone on their show, and also on the main R4 News/Dan Roan, it sounds like on balance we’ve not done well … (?)
A bit confused tbh.

What’s the best source of info to find out about this? The club website, Tolmie’s tweets?
Click to expand...
The other thread.

Edit: Been done. Sorry, was catching up ......
 
Last edited:
"The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position. The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

"The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans. As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

"The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner. The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules."



This says it all doesn't it?

If you read the BBC's take on it they'd have us believe that we are as guilty as the day is long.

Tick Tock as their brand goes down the shitter because they couldn't leave well alone.

AA1rPNNZ.img


The Premier League are set to have to amend or dump the system entirely following the verdict (chief executive Richard Masters pictured)
 
Last edited:
Alaricmc said:
Quite some years ago (as far back as the UEFA case against us and long before the Premier League charges) I posted several detailed arguments about the litigation being ill-founded. Why? Because competition law (European and British) prevents "abuse of a dominant position" and "anti-competitive practices". It seemed odd to me at the time (though since then I've come to be wise to the anti-Arab investor, pro (disgraced) US investor stance, particularly at the Express and the Telegraph, and most notably the Guardian) that point never seemed to be made.

There are perhaps 100 - maybe 500 - maybe even 5,000 - more experienced commercial lawyers in the country than me, but I know my onions. Under pressure from the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and the Levy team, the Premier League was blackmailed into introducing regulations thet they knew to be unenforceable. Abuse of a dominant position. Anti-competitive. Read the judgement and see how many times those phrases appear, Nyah, nyah. Told you so.

Damage control from the Premier League is risible. They can change the rules by club vote to align with the verdict? Yes, they can. But that's for the future, not the past. We can still sue them for the two lost sponsorship deals. And we should.

In my 5,001st ranked commercial lawyer's experience, every possible allegation gets thrown into the pot. Why? To complicate. To confuse. Invented by me - the Premier League are puppets of Putin - just look at this memo supporting Russian involvement in European competitions. But these things are careful distractions. Although they allow the other party to claim victory in insigniicant areas.

Two things were important for us. Those two things were the only arguments we needed to win. And we won both. The rules on associated party transactions are anti-competitive and an abuse by the Premier League of a dominant position. And undercover funding (see Arsenal, Liverpool, the Levy club and Manchester United - we have none) by shareholder loans claiming to be 'repayable' are now part of any FFP assessment.

Anti-competitive practices.

Abuse of a dominant position.

(Hides under cover) Toldja so.
Click to expand...
Yeah, well done mate.
 
I should be surprised but I’m not since Masters is in charge, that the PL went ahead with the rule change in February. In trying to guild the Lilly, they triggered City’s action when the club was gritting its teeth and reluctantly accepting the rules as they stood.
 
mexico1970 said:
"The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position. The Tribunal has determined both that the rules are structurally unfair and that the Premier League was specifically unfair in how it applied those rules to the Club in practice.

"The rules were found to be discriminatory in how they operate, because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans. As well as these general findings on legality, the Tribunal has set aside specific decisions of the Premier League to restate the fair market value of two transactions entered into by the Club.

"The tribunal held that the Premier League had reached the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner. The Tribunal also ruled that there was an unreasonable delay in the Premier League’s fair market value assessment of two of the Club’s sponsorship transactions, and so the Premier League breached its own rules."



This says it all doesn't it?

If you read the BBC's take on it they'd have us believe that we are as guilty as the day is long.

Tick Tock as their brand goes down the shitter because they couldn't leave well alone.

AA1rPNNZ.img


The Premier League are set to have to amend or dump the system entirely following the verdict (chief executive Richard Masters pictured)
Click to expand...
In addition to the main findings quoted above, it is worth noting that the tribunal ruled that City have a cause of action against the PL.
Some thought will now go into our next move, but the potential damages are extensive. Pay up, Masters, the redshirts will back you all the way. Ha ha.
 
KS55 said:
In addition to the main findings quoted above, it is worth noting that the tribunal ruled that City have a cause of action against the PL.
Some thought will now go into our next move, but the potential damages are extensive. Pay up, Masters, the redshirts will back you all the way. Ha ha.
Click to expand...
Yep, let's pay the dirty scheming bastads back !!
 
paulchapo said:
Everybody gives them a wide berth wherever they're spotted. It's unfortunate if you're stuck somewhere you can't escape them, like a plane. They always appear to travel mob handed and their "Humour" is just them attempting to take the piss out anybody who isn't a scouser.
Click to expand...
Their "humour" is just a distraction technique they use whilst they are busy robbing your wallet..
 
Alaricmc said:
Quite some years ago (as far back as the UEFA case against us and long before the Premier League charges) I posted several detailed arguments about the litigation being ill-founded. Why? Because competition law (European and British) prevents "abuse of a dominant position" and "anti-competitive practices". It seemed odd to me at the time (though since then I've come to be wise to the anti-Arab investor, pro (disgraced) US investor stance, particularly at the Express and the Telegraph, and most notably the Guardian) that point never seemed to be made.

There are perhaps 100 - maybe 500 - maybe even 5,000 - more experienced commercial lawyers in the country than me, but I know my onions. Under pressure from the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and the Levy team, the Premier League was blackmailed into introducing regulations thet they knew to be unenforceable. Abuse of a dominant position. Anti-competitive. Read the judgement and see how many times those phrases appear, Nyah, nyah. Told you so.

Damage control from the Premier League is risible. They can change the rules by club vote to align with the verdict? Yes, they can. But that's for the future, not the past. We can still sue them for the two lost sponsorship deals. And we should.

In my 5,001st ranked commercial lawyer's experience, every possible allegation gets thrown into the pot. Why? To complicate. To confuse. Invented by me - the Premier League are puppets of Putin - just look at this memo supporting Russian involvement in European competitions. But these things are careful distractions. Although they allow the other party to claim victory in insigniicant areas.

Two things were important for us. Those two things were the only arguments we needed to win. And we won both. The rules on associated party transactions are anti-competitive and an abuse by the Premier League of a dominant position. And undercover funding (see Arsenal, Liverpool, the Levy club and Manchester United - we have none) by shareholder loans claiming to be 'repayable' are now part of any FFP assessment.

Anti-competitive practices.

Abuse of a dominant position.

(Hides under cover) Toldja so.
Click to expand...

Brilliant work mate. Do you think if we would have challenged the legality of UEFA's ffp rules we would have bust them apart too?
 
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning by Tom Morgan saying that the club used the APT case to build a narrative that we are being discriminated against to help in this case. The words 'discrimination' and 'discriminatory' appear 17 times in the judgement and Pannick was pushing the view that the PL has created an 'extra hurdle' for our club compared to others. It's actually an interesting piece for once (unlike the Sam Wallace one this morning saying the PL won) and it references a business competition expert who says it is potentially very helpful to us.
 
Alaricmc said:
Quite some years ago (as far back as the UEFA case against us and long before the Premier League charges) I posted several detailed arguments about the litigation being ill-founded. Why? Because competition law (European and British) prevents "abuse of a dominant position" and "anti-competitive practices". It seemed odd to me at the time (though since then I've come to be wise to the anti-Arab investor, pro (disgraced) US investor stance, particularly at the Express and the Telegraph, and most notably the Guardian) that point never seemed to be made.

There are perhaps 100 - maybe 500 - maybe even 5,000 - more experienced commercial lawyers in the country than me, but I know my onions. Under pressure from the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and the Levy team, the Premier League was blackmailed into introducing regulations thet they knew to be unenforceable. Abuse of a dominant position. Anti-competitive. Read the judgement and see how many times those phrases appear, Nyah, nyah. Told you so.

Damage control from the Premier League is risible. They can change the rules by club vote to align with the verdict? Yes, they can. But that's for the future, not the past. We can still sue them for the two lost sponsorship deals. And we should.

In my 5,001st ranked commercial lawyer's experience, every possible allegation gets thrown into the pot. Why? To complicate. To confuse. Invented by me - the Premier League are puppets of Putin - just look at this memo supporting Russian involvement in European competitions. But these things are careful distractions. Although they allow the other party to claim victory in insigniicant areas.

Two things were important for us. Those two things were the only arguments we needed to win. And we won both. The rules on associated party transactions are anti-competitive and an abuse by the Premier League of a dominant position. And undercover funding (see Arsenal, Liverpool, the Levy club and Manchester United - we have none) by shareholder loans claiming to be 'repayable' are now part of any FFP assessment.

Anti-competitive practices.

Abuse of a dominant position.

(Hides under cover) Toldja so.
Click to expand...
Sir, your jib cut is most likeable
 
The more you look into yesterday's ruling and the evidence submitted on behalf of both parties, the more you realise how poorly the PL is governed.

I have worked in private business all my life, the last 20 years I have run a small business, it was pretty obvious to me that when running a business you have to act in a fair manner and exercise corporate governance to the highest possible standard at all times.

It goes without saying that corporate governance is even more important the bigger the organisation and the higher profile that orgainsation has in public life.

It's hard to imagine a more inept organisation running a multi billion pound business than the PL.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
There is an article in the Telegraph this morning by Tom Morgan saying that the club used the APT case to build a narrative that we are being discriminated against to help in this case. The words 'discrimination' and 'discriminatory' appear 17 times in the judgement and Pannick was pushing the view that the PL has created an 'extra hurdle' for our club compared to others. It's actually an interesting piece for once (unlike the Sam Wallace this morning saying the PL won) and it references a business competition expert who says it is potentially very helpful to us.
Click to expand...
The thought did occur last night, in terms of the non cooperation charges.
 
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