PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Well, what a load of bollocks. No organisation, connected to an owner or not, is going to lay bare its commercial sponsorship strategy to an organisation that leaks like a sieve, like the PL. The most they will get is a letter saying the deal is at a fair value to the sponsor and if the PL disapproves it, straight to court to get the whole thing thrown out.

The burden is on the club to show the sponsorship is at fair value? On what planet? The responsibility of any director at any club is to maximise revenues for the benefit of its shareholders. The PL has a problem? They can prove it.

This is just like the way they referee matches. Employ stupid interpretations, then when they are found to be stupid, change them into something more detailed and more stupid. It really is mind-boggling how badly is run the whole organisation.

I think what is interesting that the PL rules stipulate that they require a statement from a director (or equivalent) of the sponsoring company to say that the deal is at fair market value. In PL terms they want a statement from one plotter that there is no plot!. It may be fair to point out that City and Etihad produced documentary evidence that City performed everything they had been contracted to perform and that Etihad paid what they had agreed to pay. So City don't seem to have a problem. The PL might, though, if it persists with its categorisation of associated parties and deals. The independent regulator may also wish to know why the PL is determined to stop money coming into the game when it is needed quite desperately. But then it might also wish to know why the sustainability of a growing number of clubs is put at risk by points deductions in the name of profitability and sustainability .....

 

[Donmcfc]

It really is ridiculous. This bunch of amateurs took 4 years to bring a case against City, their teams/departments
( I actually don't believe there are any), couldn't list their own rules correctly. They only have a couple of low paid lawyers. They take 18 months to decide whether players are betting on games, and they take months to decide if they are going to back their own rules.

To believe that the shit show that is the PL have the staff or the expertise (joke) to vet every sponsorship deal and transfer is quite frankly insulting and for them, impossible. I'm not surprised the club are rumoured to be challenging this in the courts. The rule book would read like a Blackadder script with Masters in the Baldrick role.

What if Masters has a cunning plan?

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

I think what is interesting that the PL rules stipulate that they require a statement from a director (or equivalent) of the sponsoring company to say that the deal is at fair market value. In PL terms they want a statement from one plotter that there is no plot!. It may be fair to point out that City and Etihad produced documentary evidence that City performed everything they had been contracted to perform and that Etihad paid what they had agreed to pay. So City don't seem to have a problem. The PL might, though, if it persists with its categorisation of associated parties and deals. The independent regulator may also wish to know why the PL is determined to stop money coming into the game when it is needed quite desperately. But then it might also wish to know why the sustainability of a growing number of clubs is put at risk by points deductions in the name of profitability and sustainability .....

They are stopping investment coming into the game at the top level. What it will do is have an adverse effect on the trickle down of money to the lower leagues. Parry and Masters were hauled before a parliamentary select committee to discuss this, no one seems to be asking them why they are doing something that will kill the game in this country.

 

[Elbow beards]

I think what is interesting that the PL rules stipulate that they require a statement from a director (or equivalent) of the sponsoring company to say that the deal is at fair market value. In PL terms they want a statement from one plotter that there is no plot!. It may be fair to point out that City and Etihad produced documentary evidence that City performed everything they had been contracted to perform and that Etihad paid what they had agreed to pay. So City don't seem to have a problem. The PL might, though, if it persists with its categorisation of associated parties and deals. The independent regulator may also wish to know why the PL is determined to stop money coming into the game when it is needed quite desperately. But then it might also wish to know why the sustainability of a growing number of clubs is put at risk by points deductions in the name of profitability and sustainability .....

Yep, we want you to be sustainable by not letting you have a multi million pound deal that will enable you to compete, instead you can have 500k and be happy. What sort of universe are they living in.

 

[KS55]

“All reasonable care” and “Fair Market Value”. This is going to be fun. The Premier League has lost the fucking plot - all on the back of benefitting just four “special” clubs. I wonder if it’s sinking in yet how the smaller clubs are being fucked over. No problem for our City though..that horse has bolted, leaving behind just a steaming pile of shit and an open stable door :)

The ideas are so vague that if any club challenges in court a ruling against them by the PL as being contract interference, the club will win. How does the PL prove that a deal has not been assessed for fair market value by the club? That would be an early question to the PL witness to which they would have no satisfactory answer. “ We compared the deal of the treble winners to a deal by Sheffield United” Pah!

 

[Kompany & co]

Yep, we want you to be sustainable by not letting you have a multi million pound deal that will enable you to compete, instead you can have 500k and be happy. What sort of universe are they living in.

Why don't city ask the PL if their barclays sponsorship is over valued. I think Barclays would want the best team in the world to be lauded not destroyed by the pricks they are sponsoring. I think they are due a refund.

 

[KS55]

i wouldnt be so sure with these shit bags in charge and again Zieglar gets the leak

Ziegler has jumped the shark. His endorsed that “scandal”video (in which almost every ‘fact’ was wrong) without checking its provenance which was carefully concealed by whoever paid for it.

 

[Salford_Blue]

"fair value" is subjective

And unquantifiable (is that even a word?)

 

[KS55]

One thing the clueless fans accuse us of is having inflated sponsorships from Abu Dhabi based companies.

When ours don't get marked down, that shuts that argument up.

“And what, City, did you do to ensure the AbuDhabi associated sponsorships were fair market value?”
—-”Er, we asked UEFA and they agreed they were fine.”
”Oh”

 

[KS55]

He can be as powerful as he wants to be. The clubs aren't in charge of what gets discussed at the meetings. He is. They aren't responsible for presenting documentation to the meetings, he is. If there is something asked for by the clubs which goes against the spirit of competition or that he thinks will be challenged on the grounds of illegality, he should be strong enough to say no and the clubs can vote him out if they don't like it.

He is a patsy. Platini was a patsy as well and that is how all this shit started. Ceferin, at least, has some balls. Masters needs to grow some before the PL is in big trouble in the courts. One way or another, he won't be around much longer, he must know that. He should stand up, show some backbone and do what is right for once in his miserable existence.

That is the bottom line. Well said.