2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Does anybody else step back and think about how crazy this all is? We have the Premier League and it's clubs in a war against each other. How can this be good for the game in this country?

This is the thing that has me buzzing since midday!

If void completely then wtf! The implications, law suits, etc from man city and the rest of the clubs if they ask for damages and compensation!!!???

And who's going to pay it, if all the clubs chip into the fund!

How will future rules be acceptable from an organisation that can't dot "i's" or cross "t's"?

 

Soo many questions...

The APT rules are not void. The only people claiming that are the Twitter idiots like Fabrizio Romano and Matt Lawton who were jumping over themselves to push out content.

Even a quick read of the conclusions in the official judgement tells you that City lost all its challenges to the overall validity of the Rules and their statement is disingenuous at best. 

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The APT rules are not void. The only people claiming that are the Twitter idiots like Fabrizio Romano and Matt Lawton who were jumping over themselves to push out content.

Even a quick read of the conclusions in the official judgement tells you that City lost all its challenges to the overall validity of the Rules and their statement is disingenuous at best. 

Lol, I dont do twitter mate. My most is Instagram and I was forced to by the Mrs. 😄 

From the beeb:

The letter, which was also sent to the league, and has been seen by the BBC, was sent by City’s general counsel Simon Cliff on Monday.

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.

 

Watch how they go back to court for a ruling on a ruling. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 

Until someone clarifies which is right, the media are too scared to report this way or that. Lol

Edited October 9, 20241 yr by Simplymo

7 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

Does anybody else step back and think about how crazy this all is? We have the Premier League and it's clubs in a war against each other. How can this be good for the game in this country?

Zero sympathy for the Premier League. The people behind it have consistently tried to stiffle competition (badged as protecting smaller clubs, but in essence just supporting the rich and established), and have consistently blocked moves that clubs and jow public want. 

Why cant clubs negotiate sponsorship deals with who they like/want? Who are the Premier league to say that business x isnt getting fair value from business Y?

Why cant clubs negotiate their own TV deals? 

Why in 2025 is there a blackout of games at 3pm every saturday - under the pretence of support grass roots football - which already gets millions from the TV rights?

Why can someone is another country watch all Chelsea games on TV legally for free.... and yet fans 2 mins down the road (but who perhaps cant afford to go to the bridge) not watch it legally even if they wanted to pay for it? It is madness.

The premier league and clubs are at war - and there is only 1 winner. The clubs.  The Premier league needs to play ball - or the super league question will come around again faster than you can say "FFS Wacko".

6 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Lol, I dont do twitter mate. My most is Instagram and I was forced to by the Mrs. 😄 

From the beeb:

The letter, which was also sent to the league, and has been seen by the BBC, was sent by City’s general counsel Simon Cliff on Monday.

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void," the letter states.

 

Watch how they go back to court for a ruling on a ruling. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 

Until someone clarifies which is right, the media are too scared to report this way or that. Lol

It's an insane, desperate position to take and it smacks of lawfare. It sounds to me like City are trying to overwhelm the Premier League in legal disputes.

The biggest flaw in City's argument is the part they are crowing about - the deliberate exclusion of shareholder loans from APT calculations, which the Tribunal found was designed to allow a distortion of competition by not scrutinising investment - is a Rule they voted for too. 

There is no doubt that APT can’t be applied until the minutiae that dictates how APT is applied are amended. What happens to those 11 cases that the PL were assessing or indeed any transactions they rejected using those  “ flawed “ rules is up for debate and hence why the PL are meeting tomorrow .

For me the only way forward is to ( save a couple of minor amendments to become English Law compliant) would be to adopt UEFAs  process. It would make it far easier for clubs to keep things on track if they use the same guidelines or as close as possible to the same .

City clearly are trying to create clutter but they are in grave danger of pushing matters too far the letter sent out was clearly designed to put fear into the PL and clubs it’s classic bullying tactics . From some of the comments in their documentation submitted re the 115 matter they clearly don’t like operating in a democracy they don’t feel that a minority should be restricted following rules agreed by the majority they claim to want governance but it seems to me only if they City get their own way

So back to who is right.
 

Well technically they both are. APT can’t be applied till key elements are amended but the irony is that City clearly think they can push through the sponsorship deals that were initially rejected but it could be that until there is clarification re the very concept then there can’t be a reassessment.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

There is no doubt that APT can’t be applied until the minutiae that dictates how APT is applied are amended. What happens to those 11 cases that the PL were assessing or indeed any transactions they rejected using those  “ flawed “ rules is up for debate and hence why the PL are meeting tomorrow .

For me the only way forward is to ( save a couple of minor amendments to become English Law compliant) would be to adopt UEFAs  process. It would make it far easier for clubs to keep things on track if they use the same guidelines or as close as possible to the same .

City clearly are trying to create clutter but they are in grave danger of pushing matters too far the letter sent out was clearly designed to put fear into the PL and clubs it’s classic bullying tactics . From some of the comments in their documentation submitted re the 115 matter they clearly don’t like operating in a democracy they don’t feel that a minority should be restricted following rules agreed by the majority they claim to want governance but it seems to me only if they City get their own way

So back to who is right.
 

Well technically they both are. APT can’t be applied till key elements are amended but the irony is that City clearly think they can push through the sponsorship deals that were initially rejected but it could be that until there is clarification re the very concept then there can’t be a reassessment.

 

 

 

 

That thing about a democracy being what the majority want is something that City would challenge I think under the old " the tyranny of the majority" argument. The argument that it can't be democratic if the will of the minority is of no account at all.

I might have explained it incorrectly, but I remember it from the distant past as being some counter view to absolute majority rule.

 

Given the blows and barbs the PL and City are exchanging I wonder if the Super League will be back on the table

12 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Zero sympathy for the Premier League. The people behind it have consistently tried to stiffle competition (badged as protecting smaller clubs, but in essence just supporting the rich and established), and have consistently blocked moves that clubs and jow public want. 

Why cant clubs negotiate sponsorship deals with who they like/want? Who are the Premier league to say that business x isnt getting fair value from business Y?

Why cant clubs negotiate their own TV deals? 

Why in 2025 is there a blackout of games at 3pm every saturday - under the pretence of support grass roots football - which already gets millions from the TV rights?

Why can someone is another country watch all Chelsea games on TV legally for free.... and yet fans 2 mins down the road (but who perhaps cant afford to go to the bridge) not watch it legally even if they wanted to pay for it? It is madness.

The premier league and clubs are at war - and there is only 1 winner. The clubs.  The Premier league needs to play ball - or the super league question will come around again faster than you can say "FFS Wacko".

This, this, this, 100%.

Especially the point about watching games abroad and can't watch them at home.  I sometimes spend months bed bound or in hospital due to my back and legs (nerve dmg) and I have all the subscriptions for sky, amazon, tnt, etc and still can't watch all the games unless I stream them. It's my biggest ggggrrrrr about the PL. 🤬

And I can't stand their rubbish excuse for it. It's so fkn obvious it's about TV rights and money or they would have shown the women's football if worried ppl won't attend the men's games.

It's just a rubbish excuse by them for control or money. Give us money and we will give you a match. Gggrrrr, fkwits.

9 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

It's an insane, desperate position to take and it smacks of lawfare. It sounds to me like City are trying to overwhelm the Premier League in legal disputes.

The biggest flaw in City's argument is the part they are crowing about - the deliberate exclusion of shareholder loans from APT calculations, which the Tribunal found was designed to allow a distortion of competition by not scrutinising investment - is a Rule they voted for too. 

Yep, that's why I said "well played man city" lol. It wasn't the separate arguments but the final result that mattered. Ie...its void. Even the PL said they would rush the ammendments but nope, sry this is how we ended here in the first place, by rushing. So Stop, step back and let's do it properly is now man city's argument. No court will argue against that. Man city will also argue why should the clubs spend more money on fighting ammendments constantly. Putting more money in the PL pot instead of stopping and doing it properly.

The question is who's going to back down first...

Atm city have the PL by the balls imho, even if all the clubs push ammendments man city can take this to court again very easily as they have shown the current rules are unlawful because they were rushed in quickly to stop the deals going through and PL are just repeating the same mistake again.

Its a fkn sh*t show but imo one that's needed if the PL want to stretch its muscles. Like it has. It can't do that if it is corrupt or hasn't addressed the rules properly.

Like I said before, I would fkn love to be a fly on the wall of that meeting. I'd pay for it. Lol

After all that though, personally, I think a deal will be made at that meeting to minimise disruption as much as possible. 

 

 

In rgds to Chelsea, I'd hold up a bit longer on the front of shirt sponsor until after the meeting. Lol

Edited October 9, 20241 yr by Simplymo

21 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Given the blows and barbs the PL and City are exchanging I wonder if the Super League will be back on the table

I doubt it, tbh.

They just need to void ATP to make most of the noise go away until they can ALL agree on the new ATP rules.

One thing the tribunal did agree on is that the ATP is necessary (obv. Not in its current format) which man city agrees on too.

The ball is the PL's court atm...they can double down and all goes to sh*t if man city don't back down. Or make a deal on time frame, improvements, etc...and confirm ATP is void atm.

Edited October 9, 20241 yr by Simplymo

But...there's more!!!

🤣 🤣 🤣 

 

How does this affect the 115 charges!

Because man city's legal team can fight those too and have even better chances now...there's more to come. Lol

 

 

*i want to note down which legal firm man city has. I'm saving their number. Lol

4 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Yep, that's why I said "well played man city" lol. It wasn't the separate arguments but the final result that mattered. Ie...its void. Even the PL said they would rush the ammendments but nope, sry this is how we ended here in the first place, by rushing. So Stop, step back and let's do it properly is now man city's argument. No court will argue against that. 

The Rules are not void. Man City lost that point, the Tribunal declared that the rules are valid, lawful and a necessary power of the Premier League as a regulator of competition. 

Man City only won minor arguments that do not void the Rules as a whole. Just because one clause of the Rules is invalidated it does not mean the whole thing is invalid, that is an absurd argument.

I think what the media are missing is that City have somewhat backstabbed other clubs because loans from shareholders must now be paid back at market interest. Every club bar City and Newcastle rely on no-interest loans from their owners whereas the squillionaire Gulf clubs can use actual cash.

13 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

It's an insane, desperate position to take and it smacks of lawfare. It sounds to me like City are trying to overwhelm the Premier League in legal disputes.

The biggest flaw in City's argument is the part they are crowing about - the deliberate exclusion of shareholder loans from APT calculations, which the Tribunal found was designed to allow a distortion of competition by not scrutinising investment - is a Rule they voted for too. 

We gave evidence in support of City. Did we vote for it too ?

8 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

The Rules are not void. Man City lost that point, the Tribunal declared that the rules are valid, lawful and a necessary power of the Premier League as a regulator of competition. 

Man City only won minor arguments that do not void the Rules as a whole. Just because one clause of the Rules is invalidated it does not mean the whole thing is invalid, that is an absurd argument.

I think what the media are missing is that City have somewhat backstabbed other clubs because loans from shareholders must now be paid back at market interest. Every club bar City and Newcastle rely on no-interest loans from their owners whereas the squillionaire Gulf clubs can use actual cash.

I don't think oil rich billionaire owners can just gift their clubs money ?

Otherwise FFP and PSR wouldn't exist.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing for clubs with wealthy owners ready to spend whatever it takes to make a team one of the trophy winning elite.

Like us and Mr. Abramovich !

 

 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

We gave evidence in support of City. Did we vote for it too ?

Yep. 19 out of 20 clubs (including us, and Man City themselves) voted to exclude shareholder loans from APT calculations. This was to allow owners to invest into their clubs via below-market or zero interest loans. This is how Abramovich funded us too, with no-interest, unlimited time loans from a holding company (Fordstam). Virtually every other ownership in the league also does this. I believe Boehly/Clearlake's initial investment is cash only and not a loan, however given we have spent most of that any subsequent investment will likely be a no- or low-interest loan from Clearlake, so this affects our plans going forward. 

City successfully argued that the clubs (including themselves) 'conspired' to allow this distortion of the market - ie. that the other clubs using interest-free shareholder loans gave them a financial and competitive advantage over Man City. 

Hopefully you can appreciate what an absurd argument that is!

Of course, conspiring to distort a market is illegal under UK competition law so this part of the Rules is declared unlawful and voided. However the APT rules as a whole were found to be valid.

 

The evidence provided by Chelsea, Newcastle and Everton was in relation to the calculation of Fair Market Value, which City argued (IMO reasonably) is inherently inconsistent and subjective, and therefore APT rules are not possible. The Tribunal rejected this, stating that it was lawful, reasonable and that the Premier League generally followed due process (except in two minor circumstances - there were delays in processing Man City's assessments which City claimed caused them financial harm to due uncertainty). 

The Tribunal stated that APT Rules are necessary for the Premier League to regulate fair competition between clubs. They accepted that Fair Market Value is subjective but ruled that it is still an appropriate way for the Premier League to assess APTs, however they also declared that the PL needs to make more information available to the clubs and the onus should be on the PL to disprove FMV, not the clubs to prove it.  Again, a relatively minor change of process required for PL, not some sort of game-changing win by Man City.

FWIW I don't agree with the Tribunal's reasoning. Their argument was essentially "the ends justify the means" when it comes to the PL preserving competitiveness, which is absurd. You can't enforce something if there's no consistent standard for what is "right".
 

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

I don't think oil rich billionaire owners can just gift their clubs money ?

Not in unlimited amounts, no, but owners can still contribute their own money to cover a club's losses, within the 105m limit. Most owners do this through interest-free loans, except City, Newcastle and us (for a limited time).

The Rules will have to be amended to include scrutiny of these loans, which means they will no longer be able to have favourable terms but be set at market rates. No idea what a typical loan looks like in the UK, but if an owner lends their club £100m at 4% interest for 10 years, that's £163m that needs to be repaid to the owner, which is an extra £16.3m per season that needs to be accounted for in PSR.

Man City have essentially told the other clubs "you took my loophole, I'll take yours". Chelsea's owners need both loopholes to be successful, so this decision is not great for us.

13 minutes ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Of course, conspiring to distort a market is illegal under UK competition law so this part of the Rules is declared unlawful and voided. However the APT rules as a whole were found to be valid.

This is the part that they are currently arguing about and if you read the PL statement, it is worded in such a vague way which is why mcfc sent that letter.

Yes, it could be absolutely absurd or insane but at the end of the day one side says part of it is unlawful in competition law and public law, so its all void. The other side are saying we will rush in new ammendments at the next meeting to keep APT (which the first side, mcfc, said they will take legal action if they do rush it in).  I'm not talking about social media but the actual PL and mcfc. Their last statements and that's pretty much where we are at till the meeting...outcome? Fk knows.

Will the PL double down? Will mcfc have the balls to take further legal action? Will clubs continue to pay money into the pot for the pl to continue their fight against mcfc? so many questions before we even get to what it means for other clubs and again I would love to be at that meeting.

Lol

One thing though...this ain't finished yet. Unless they all get stoned at that meet and kiss and hug each other, this can still get bad for everyone in one way or another.

Oh god, Imagine if there's a walkout and this goes back to court. 😄 

 

12 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

This is the part that they are currently arguing about and if you read the PL statement, it is worded in such a vague way which is why mcfc sent that letter.

There is no argument. Irrespective of what Man City or the PL appear to have stated, the judgement is very explicit:

592. MCFC challenges the APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules as being restrictive of competition in several respects contrary to the Chapter I and II prohibitions of the 1998 Act. We hold that (i) the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules and Amended APT Rules and (ii) the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules are unlawful as they infringe the Chapter I and II prohibitions but all other challenges fail.

Point (ii) was basically the Tribunal declaring the amended Rules risk biasing the PL towards finding fault with APTs, rather than a more neutral decision space. The direction is for the PL to have greater onus to disprove the FMV, rather than clubs having to prove it themselves. That is a very minor change in the grand scheme of things and the PL will just vote to revert to the 2021 rules.

It actually affects us more than Man City, since they have an established shirt sponsor (Etihad) whereas we were looking to cut deals with smaller start-up companies like Infinite Athlete.

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

1) There is no argument. Irrespective of what Man City or the PL appear to have stated, the judgement is very explicit:

592. MCFC challenges the APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules as being restrictive of competition in several respects contrary to the Chapter I and II prohibitions of the 1998 Act. We hold that (i) the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT Rules and Amended APT Rules and (ii) the pricing changes in Appendix 18 of the Amended APT Rules are unlawful as they infringe the Chapter I and II prohibitions but all other challenges fail.**

2) Point (ii) was basically the Tribunal declaring the amended Rules risk biasing the PL towards finding fault with APTs, rather than a more neutral decision space. The direction is for the PL to have greater onus to disprove the FMV, rather than clubs having to prove it themselves. That is a very minor change in the grand scheme of things and the PL will just vote to revert to the 2021 rules.

 

One question: do you agree the ATP is void/on hold/sabbatical/etc until the ammendments are done? 

I really do understand where you are coming from on everything else and I agree the judgement was very explicit on how many challenges were won and lost. I'm with you on that.

But the judgement was not explicit on whether those 2 failures voided all of ATP or not.

The above is exactly what the PL are pushing even using some of the same wording. But again note how vague it is, they do not mention or reinforce if the APT is active, hold or void or anything. All they they have said is they will add/ammend as soon as possible like you mention above. 

Honestly if I was the PL then I would want the teams to know nothing has changed apart from those 2 rulings and all is well with the rules. But they don't! It's vague for a reason...

 

Now, this is what mcfc are saying in reply.

1) there's no need for ALL the challenges to win/pass!

From mcfc legal counsel:

He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.

2) it isn't a MINOR change....not for MCFC anyway!

"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."

The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.

However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".

However, City's lawyers believe that it would be unfair to continue to subject previous sponsorship deals to APT rules that have now been found to be partly unlawful, while choosing not to subject previous shareholder loans to the same regulations. They may even seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from trying to doing so.

 

So from the above. Even the PL, if pushed, will say the current ATP is void until those ammendments take place, which is something they do not want to say. They are leaving the first part out deliberately.

And from the above we can see that mcfc will fight if the PL rushes a new ATP or ammendments.

It isn't a minor thing in mcfc's view and they do have a leg to stand on to make it worse for the PL if they rush it and mcfc choose to chase it.

592. (i) & (ii) the word "ammendment" appears 3 times. It's not hard for mcfc legal team to prove that's because they rushed and are just doing the same thing again. That's a ruling they can win. The case law is right there and supercedes or comes before common and public law.

 

So...back to my original set of questions.

Will PL double down and call mcfc's move by pushing through ammendments?

Do mcfc have the balls to turn the PL on its head starting with stopping those ammendments from passing?

 

Personally, I think a deal will be made at that meeting. Unless PL ego gets in the way! We already know mcfc ain't scared of a fight!

"Is Manchester City’s rage against the machine more a posture than a plan? | Paul MacInnes"  https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/09/manchester-city-rage-against-machine-premier-league?CMP=share_btn_url

 

Ref for points 1 & 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c33vj62p4gzo

 

 

*It actually affects us more than Man City, since they have an established shirt sponsor (Etihad) whereas we were looking to cut deals with smaller start-up companies like Infinite Athlete.

If its completely void, i say it affects no one tbh. I know, I know....see above. Lol

 

One thing we must agree on though...We'd love to be at that meeting right?

🤣

Edited October 10, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Also this bit I forgot to highlight above and please excuse the above post, I missed a few quotation marks.

BBC:

"The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law."

So in other words the current rules do not comply with competition law (& public law). Note it doesn't highlight those 2 points but everything else is OK.

And come on bud, the fact the PL hasn't come out to even deny mcfc's letter or its wording should really point to that right now, in this moment, ATP is void.

40 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

Also this bit I forgot to highlight above and please excuse the above post, I missed a few quotation marks.

BBC:

"The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law."

So in other words the current rules do not comply with competition law (& public law). Note it doesn't highlight those 2 points but everything else is OK.

And come on bud, the fact the PL hasn't come out to even deny mcfc's letter or its wording should really point to that right now, in this moment, ATP is void.

So - do we need to push through a sponsor asap - for 25billion a week?

Edited October 10, 20241 yr by nonotnowjim

7 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

So - do we need to push through a sponsor asap - for 25billion a week?

Lol, probably the best time to do it once it's confirmed.

 

It all depends on what happens at this meet tbh. I'm sure the PL would love to do a deal and end all this sh*t but I don't know how it would get away with it with the other clubs, public, media.

Or will it be a dick measuring contest without either party caring about the outcome?

🤷‍♂️

Unless they come to an agreement about time frame, rules, etc...this fight isn't over and even though they ruled ATP is important and should exist, it can't exist in its current format or with its current rules atm. Definitely the best time to do sh*t...lol

Tbh this is just the tip of the iceberg.

They are still at the phase of "is it" or "isn't it" while trying to quickly correct it.

The repercussions haven't even started yet for what isn't disputed by both parties, and that the tribunal has ruled upon, like compensation or damages or anything like that from 2021 onwards for any club involved.

1 hour ago, Simplymo said:

One question: do you agree the ATP is void/on hold/sabbatical/etc until the ammendments are done? 

I really do understand where you are coming from on everything else and I agree the judgement was very explicit on how many challenges were won and lost. I'm with you on that.

But the judgement was not explicit on whether those 2 failures voided all of ATP or not.

The above is exactly what the PL are pushing even using some of the same wording. But again note how vague it is, they do not mention or reinforce if the APT is active, hold or void or anything. All they they have said is they will add/ammend as soon as possible like you mention above. 

Honestly if I was the PL then I would want the teams to know nothing has changed apart from those 2 rulings and all is well with the rules. But they don't! It's vague for a reason...

 

Now, this is what mcfc are saying in reply.

1) there's no need for ALL the challenges to win/pass!

From mcfc legal counsel:

He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.

2) it isn't a MINOR change....not for MCFC anyway!

"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."

The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.

However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".

However, City's lawyers believe that it would be unfair to continue to subject previous sponsorship deals to APT rules that have now been found to be partly unlawful, while choosing not to subject previous shareholder loans to the same regulations. They may even seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from trying to doing so.

 

So from the above. Even the PL, if pushed, will say the current ATP is void until those ammendments take place, which is something they do not want to say. They are leaving the first part out deliberately.

And from the above we can see that mcfc will fight if the PL rushes a new ATP or ammendments.

It isn't a minor thing in mcfc's view and they do have a leg to stand on to make it worse for the PL if they rush it and mcfc choose to chase it.

592. (i) & (ii) the word "ammendment" appears 3 times. It's not hard for mcfc legal team to prove that's because they rushed and are just doing the same thing again. That's a ruling they can win. The case law is right there and supercedes or comes before common and public law.

 

So...back to my original set of questions.

Will PL double down and call mcfc's move by pushing through ammendments?

Do mcfc have the balls to turn the PL on its head starting with stopping those ammendments from passing?

 

Personally, I think a deal will be made at that meeting. Unless PL ego gets in the way! We already know mcfc ain't scared of a fight!

"Is Manchester City’s rage against the machine more a posture than a plan? | Paul MacInnes"  https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/09/manchester-city-rage-against-machine-premier-league?CMP=share_btn_url

 

Ref for points 1 & 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c33vj62p4gzo

 

 

*It actually affects us more than Man City, since they have an established shirt sponsor (Etihad) whereas we were looking to cut deals with smaller start-up companies like Infinite Athlete.

If its completely void, i say it affects no one tbh. I know, I know....see above. Lol

 

One thing we must agree on though...We'd love to be at that meeting right?

🤣

 

32 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

Also this bit I forgot to highlight above and please excuse the above post, I missed a few quotation marks.

BBC:

"The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law."

So in other words the current rules do not comply with competition law (& public law). Note it doesn't highlight those 2 points but everything else is OK.

And come on bud, the fact the PL hasn't come out to even deny mcfc's letter or its wording should really point to that right now, in this moment, ATP is void.

To answer your questions.

APT is still very much alive and kicking the problems are

1) the measures used to determine  information used in the decision making process are flawed . Bit like having a speed limit of 60 mph and challenges to the method of determining a vehicle’s speed. The speed limit remains so does the APT principles.

 

2) The tribunal have given the PL clear direction as to how new measures should be scripted indeed the PL had a 12 day delay from receiving the ICs rulings to the release of the findings and on top of that it would have been clear during the hearing as to how the panel were viewing matters as the hearing progressed. I have been part to several tribunals and arbitration panels and you get a massive hint very early on how it’s going to go simply because the two sides case set out in their bundles will have been read and discussed . 
 

My legal training is limited and there is no doubt that the new rules will have to go through various experts who will in turn need time to think and research but as I say a chunk of the ground work will have been done already and legal opinion will always differ depending on which side of the argument you are on so those that script laws will always be mindful that their words are not just open to interpretation but challenge. It could be that if the PL appealed the ruling another panel would say the polar opposite. That’s what happened in the Leicester Case.

 

3) The power is with the clubs ( plural) not Man City (singular). City are trying to convince the other clubs this isn’t about their  bank balance it’s about them trying to ensure rules are sound. Until clubs vote to abandon APT by a 75% majority they remain. The fact is that the English judicial system haven’t ruled it was an opinion of a internal arbitration panel
 

4) As legal opinion is now flowing from those that have read the rulings the majority, and sizeable at that, do not agree that this is a big win for City the ruling makes mention as to why the PL didn’t assess two of the three sponsor deals correctly those deals haven’t been agreed now they are still either in limbo or no longer on the table.

5) It’s clear that the matter of owner loans will need to be resolved. That will be easily reminded going forward in terms of the rules the dilemma will be around re opening or not  clubs earlier submissions . If you look at the rules around how amortisation is now restricted to 5 years that rule change in a way  was easily implemented and that set a precedent in that the PL and clubs couldn’t look to re assess matters that complied with the rules in place at the time .

So yes APT as a concept, as a rule as a requirement is still in place but tweaks into how that is aspect of the rules is processed needs to be amended.

 

47 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

Lol, probably the best time to do it once it's confirmed.

 

It all depends on what happens at this meet tbh. I'm sure the PL would love to do a deal and end all this sh*t but I don't know how it would get away with it with the other clubs, public, media.

Or will it be a dick measuring contest without either party caring about the outcome?

🤷‍♂️

Unless they come to an agreement about time frame, rules, etc...this fight isn't over and even though they ruled ATP is important and should exist, it can't exist in its current format or with its current rules atm. Definitely the best time to do sh*t...lol

This  matter is a ruling looking at  Associated Party Transactions if we could could find a sponsor at any time wanting to pay £100 million say and they weren’t though direct or business linked to the owners and it could be proven that it was fair value then the league wouldn’t block it.

We know that CFC backed either in full or in part City’s challenge. I explained earlier that they did that for a reason linked to matters Chelsea. It could be around how the hotels were looked at but more likely it’s to do with something in the background could be an associated party sponsorship or an associated party transaction but you can be sure that our owners make most decisions such as not having a lower deal for a front of shirt sponsor because they see other options and options that offer greater financial freedom for BlueCo

On the point that people abroad can watch the matches for free: in my country that’s not the case. I need to pay for the channel Viaplay that has bought the rights. It shows a few matches for free, but somehow this season it has not been a  Chelsea match 😡 As the fee has been hiked up regularly and Viaplay is tottering on the brink of failure, for now I have opted not to renew my subscription, but sheesh I miss it.