Chris Dakers 🎭

musician & Owner of waiter surprise. singer entertainer walking hiking and loves the Toon

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@LeeStrobel He spoke to me a few nights back and said not in this universe would he come back…. But keep up the good work…. ?

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

Fantastic… Get in girls! 🖤🤍

[Newcastle United @NUFC]

Victory at the Stadium of Light! 😍

GET IN, @NUFCWomen! 🙌

[Memecastle United @Memecastle_Utd]

We own that small club down the road ⬛⬜

#NUFC

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@rustyrockets You are the false prophet

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@rustyrockets @TuckerCarlson Is this a parody account now ?

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@rustyrockets No Russ it’s just the weather

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@samcunningham Somebody put him back in his pram! 🙄

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@rustyrockets Why do we have to worship ? What’s to worship and what’s the out come of being worshiped by those who worship you?

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

Mike cashley used NUFC as an advertising vehicle for SD and not a word was said about it! He had zero interest in the club as a growing concern or the fans. Yet the moment we get owners with ambition they pull the plug and change the rules to suppress growth of the club. #NUFC

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@ItsLB_City Just confirming what we already knew pal! The day the club was trying to be sold was the day we found out they didn’t want the fox in the hen house.

[slbsn @slbsn]

⚖️ EXPLAINED: What City won in the APT case

City challenged several aspects of the Premier League’s Associated Party Transactions (“APT”) rules, with claims centred around competition law and procedural fairness.

City sought a declaration that Rules E.55-79 of the Rules which concern APTs were unlawful and an order that two decisions of the Board of the PL (“the Board”) concerning APTs to which MCFC were party should be set aside.

The APT Rules were introduced in December 2021 and were amended in February 2024 (“the Amended APT Rules”). The challenge was to both the APT Rules and the Amended APT Rules.

In particular, City challenged the Amended APT Rules which included the following amendments to the original APT rules:

City did not establish all the APT rules were unlawful but...

City challenged the introduction of the terms “would” and “normal market conditions” in the APT rules, which they argued created an unfair burden on clubs to prove that transactions were at Fair Market Value (FMV).

The removal of the adverb "evidently" from FMV assessments and the shift of the burden of proof to clubs was another area City challenged, arguing it removed a protective buffer against incorrect evaluations.

It was pointed out that the PL's KC advice on the original rules was premised on the inclusion of the word "evidently" which was later removed in the Amended APT Rules.

These changes, according to City, increased the risk of false positives.

The Tribunal agreed that the combined effect of these changes increased the likelihood of erroneous FMV determinations, distorting competition (para 285). The Tribunal considered that the Amended APT Rules removed an important part of the previous buffer which was intended to reduce the risk of false positives (para 288).

City also successfully argued that the exclusion of shareholder loans from the APT rules was unlawful as it allowed certain clubs to bypass financial regulations, distorting competition. It should be noted that the exclusion had been approved by 19/20 clubs including City!

The Tribunal ruled that excluding shareholder loans from FMV assessments was unlawful under competition law, agreeing it distorted the Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

The Tribunal also made the following key decisions regarding City’s challenges to the PL handling of the EAG Transaction and the FAB Transaction:

1⃣EAG transaction: The Tribunal ruled that the Premier League’s decision on the Etihad Airways Group (EAG) Transaction was procedurally unfair. This was because the PL did not give City an opportunity to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis before making its final decision. As a result, the decision regarding this transaction was set aside. Importantly, the decision was set aside only on the grounds of procedural unfairness related to the lack of opportunity to respond.

2⃣FAB transaction: Similarly, the tribunal found that the PL’s decision regarding the First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) Transaction was also procedurally unfair. The PL did not provide City with the Databank transactions from other clubs, which were referenced in the Premier League Board’s Final Determination. Because this critical information was not disclosed to City prior to the final decision, the Tribunal ruled that the decision must be set aside. Again, this was solely for the reason of procedural unfairness due to the lack of access to the data.

If these transactions are ultimately approved, City may be able to claim damages if they can prove the unlawful rules caused such losses and rejections.

City also raised transparency and procedural concerns, arguing they were unable to fairly challenge FMV determinations without access to comparable transaction data. This lack of access, they claimed, hindered their ability to contest the Premier League's findings. City partially won. The Tribunal agreed the lack of access was procedurally unfair, particularly the inability to comment on comparable data, undermining City’s ability to challenge the assessments effectively.

While City didn’t win every battle, they scored significant victories in proving that some aspects of the 2024 APT Rules—particularly the reversal of the burden of proof, the removal of “evidently,” and the exclusion of shareholder loans—were unlawful and "an abuse of a dominant position."

None of this is likely to impact the 115/130 case save for hardening the resolve of both sides to win that case.

The stakes are even higher now...

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@LukeEdwardsTele It also questions the integrity of the premier league and how it changed its rules to hold back a club with in its own league to serve a few other clubs. That’s not a fair league or competition.

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@SkySportsNews Bringing in rules on an assumption that Newcastle would do something to be successful. Yet breaking the rules of fair competition. Corrupt league

[Henry Winter @henrywinter]

Today’s Associated Party Transaction ruling further highlights the civil war within the Premier League, and the power of lawyers ahead of administrators in shaping the future of the game. This dispute between Manchester City and the Premier League is totally separate from the 115 charges, again involving legions of lawyers, but indicative of how disagreements are now settled in front of judges rather than collectively amongst the 20 clubs around the Premier League table. A sad development. The old unity has gone and the Premier League is weakened.

Tribunal judges deemed two aspects of APT rules unlawful. “Shareholder loans should not be excluded from the scope of the APT rules…and that a limited number of amendments introduced to the rules earlier this year should not be retained”. PL acknowledges the Tribunal did “identify a small number of discrete elements of the Rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements”. PL says “these elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the League and clubs”. PL adds that Tribunal “rejected Manchester City’s argument that the object of the APT Rules was to discriminate against clubs with ownership from the ‘Gulf region”.
Easier now for wealthy club owners like City and Newcastle United to do bigger sponsorship deals with companies connected to owners. Potentially, ruling causes problems for those clubs with interest-free loans from owners. @premierleague argues that the Tribunal “upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective”.
PL adds that APT rules “ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties. These Rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League”. And to think football once used to be a sport.

[Nick De Marco KC @nickdemarco_]

Manchester City v The Premier League

Today we have finally been able to read the written reasons in the MCFC v PL arbitration about the legality of the PL’s Associated Party Transaction Rules (‘APT’) and their application.

As is often the case with lawyers, both sides have declared victory. The truth is somewhere in between, with each side winning on different issues. The fact, however, that parts of the PL’s APT Rules have been declared unlawful is significant. Just a few days after the European Court found parts of FIFA’s RSTP were unlawful, and coming not long after the ESL case in Europe (finding FIFA and UEFA rules to be unlawful), and the decision of an FA Rule Arbitral Tribunal that The FIFA and FA’s cap on football agents fees was unlawful, the case represents another example of the increasing tendency of courts and tribunals to hold sports regulators to closer scrutiny than has previously been the case the – in particular where economic activity is involved and where issues of freedom of movement and competition law arise. In addition, some of MCFC’s ‘wins’ in the APT case were based on English public law principles of procedural fairness.

I have been inundated with media requests to discuss the decision, which I must decline, and say no more than I do here for now. Many of the clients I advise will have various issues and interests that will arise from the decision, so it would be inappropriate for me to speak about it now, or express my own opinion.

All that I can say is we are living in the most exciting time for sports law. I have never myself been one to celebrate the greater commercialisation and therefore legalisation of sport and its regulation, but it is a real fact of life and economic activity, such that this tendency for greater scrutiny of sports regulation is inevitable.

It does perhaps also lend further support to the calls for greater independence, and transparency, in the regulation of sport.

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@premierleague cartel sack the board NOW!

[Toon Polls @ToonPolls]

So, the @premierleague :

▪️ Violated UK competition law & requirements of procedural fairness
▪️Reached decisions in procedurally unfair manner
▪️Breached its own rules
▪️Were discriminatory in how they operate
▪️Abused its dominant position

Richard Masters should be sacked.

[Martyn Ziegler @martynziegler]

Hugely significant breaking news:

Man City victory as Premier League’s sponsorship rules declared unlawful

https://t.co/1PnCdsZRKp

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

So damming that the @premierleague is a cartel and changes the rules to suit there own agenda. #NUFC

[Pete Davey @davez2010]

RIGHT THERE IN ⚫️&⚪️👇🏾 👇🏾👇🏾👇🏾

The PL and 11 others clubs actively tried to stop #NUFC once the take over went through

ITS A DISGRACE‼️ what we already knew

F*** THE LOT OF EM‼️🤬🤬

[Chris Dakers 🎭 @ChrisDakers]

@irv1878 @Everton Not sure what your point is ?if that was the football club punching a horse I could see your point? That’s just a dafty in a toon shirt doing something ridiculous.