PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Stoned Rose]

This is all going to make a seriously good movie one day! “The tyranny of the majority” wonder who’ll play khaldoon?

John Bishop.

 

[paulchapo]

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.

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?

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

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.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

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.

Sir, your jib cut is most likeable

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

The thought did occur last night, in terms of the non cooperation charges.

 

[mancboy]

Sir, your jib cut is most likeable

Im not sure he wants you looking at his jib cut, or maybe he does each to their own ;)

 

[Tolmie scores]

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.

Anybody who tells you " We are dead funny, us...or We have the best sense of humour, us" are ckearly none of the above.. The best humour often comes with a healthy slice of self deprication.. a lot of scousers genuinely struggle with this aspect of life. Making many of them very "unfunny"

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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.

Agreed. But City have spent four years gathering evidence on the corrupt relationships between the PL leadership and some club directors. That Newcastle email is the tip of a very large iceberg. City know what has been going on and so do a lot of very senior politicians who are introducing independent regulation. The game is up.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

"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.

The Premier League are set to have to amend or dump the system entirely following the verdict (chief executive Richard Masters pictured)

No matter how much people at the BBC try to distort the truth they can’t get away from those comments made by three independent Judges.