Manchester City won the first “fight” against Premier League

The accused of 115 charges against her for violating her financial rules and awaiting the relevant verdict. However, at the same time- he already won the first “fight” with the organizing principle of the English league. A little smile… burst into Manchester City, waiting for the verdict on the 115 cases of breaking rules of the Premier League’s financial fair play. This… victory concerns a parallel case that runs against the organizing authority. “City takes a historic decision against Premier on trade rules governing clubs”, says Sky Sports, which adds: “The League had blocked two of City’s sponsorship agreements (p.: with Etihad and First Abu Dhabi Bank) in a move that an independent committee considered illegal.” The Premier League decision was found wrong. “Citizens” had filed an appeal against 25 Premier regulations concerning transactions between related parties. This means that regulations that prevent groups from expanding agreements with companies associated with their owners are deemed illegal on the grounds that the competition law is being violated. “A possible change of law could lead City to come up with more lucrative deals and claim compensation from the Premier League,” the “The Times”. Manchester City announcement: “After today’s publication of the Arbitration Court decision , Manchester City thanks the distinguished members of the Arbitration Court for their work and assessments and welcomes their conclusions: – The club succeeded with its lawsuit: The rules of the transaction with related parties were deemed illegal and the Premier League decisions on two specific sponsorship transactions were annulled. – The Court concluded that both the original and the applicable (modified) relevant rules violate UK competition legislation and violate procedural justice requirements. – The Premier League was found to have abused its dominant position. – The Court found that the rules were structurally unfair and that the Premier League was especially unfair in the way it applied these rules to the Group in practice. – The rules were considered discriminatory in their way of operation because they deliberately excluded shareholder loans. In addition to these general conclusions on legality, the Court annulled specific decisions of the Premier League to reaffirm the fair market value of two transactions carried out by the group. – The court ruled that the Premier League had made the decisions in a procedurally unfair manner. – The Court also held that there was an undue delay in assessing the fair market value by Premier League two of the group’s sponsored transactions, and therefore the Premier League violated its own rules. “