City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Millions are being spent on legal fees to fight this case. One senior club source says the Premier League’s legal bill has more than quadrupled in the past year, from about £5million to north of £20million. They also point to the fact that since February the Premier League’s own legal department has been forced to shift its focus to this claim when it is also trying to prepare for the hearing into City’s 115 charges. “This is clearly a tactic,” the source said.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
My gut reaction to this is that we’re not on very strong ground here and that we might lose this action.

If that happens, the whattaboutery around 115 will ramp up off the charts, despite the two cases having nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...
I think we are on incredibly strong ground , how on earth do the pl think they have a right to tell a company what they can pay anyone for a sponsorship deal and what is the pls defence that its unfair that this team makes more money than that team, how are the dippers, rags, and arsenal going to justify the standard chartered, team viewer and rwandan deals as fair market value
 
John Wayne said:
Glass half full. The club genuinely believes it's getting fucked over on account of being from the Middle East to the point that a UAE-based company faces more restrictions for sponsoring City than it would for United. The club wants to fight this independently from the charges.
Click to expand...

A good example would be Arsenal rather than the Rags…
 
Don Howe said:
This should help club's image, sigh. Seems so unnecessary to me. Unless they've got real dirt, which I doubt. Exhausting being a City fan.

Is fair market value a bad thing, really? Or is it not being used fairly?
Click to expand...

Agree but city Must have a case so why bother doing it?
 
Am I reading too much into the timing of the 115 charges hearing in November and the club wanting a response from Pep regarding his contract around the same time? Seems a strange time to announce either a departure or an extension without the 2 being linked.
 
First, this hearing is totally separate to the 115 charges.
This hearing is to challenge the legality of the PL regulations brought in in 2021 when Newcastle were bought by the Saudi Wealth Fund.
The PL Related Party Rules were changed to restrict income from state majority owned entities - even though by IFRS IAS 24 accountacy rules, they aren't related parties.
Legally, either ALL major sponsorships go through the same filter or none. The PL can't pick and choose which club sponsorsips go through this filter.
Some bigger clubs have received massive sponsorships from US companies that have relationships with PL club US owners. What were the alternatives here? It didn't matter apparantly - it wasn't from the gulf.

Deloite IAS 24 changes over the years:

IAS 24 — Related Party Disclosures

IAS 24 requires disclosures about transactions and outstanding balances with an entity's related parties. The standard defines various classes of entities and people as related parties and sets out the disclosures required in respect of those parties, including the compensation of key...
www.iasplus.com www.iasplus.com
 
Last edited:
mancboy said:
I think we are on incredibly strong ground , how on earth do the pl think they have a right to tell a company what they can pay anyone for a sponsorship deal and what is the pls defence that its unfair that this team makes more money than that team, how are the dippers, rags, and arsenal going to justify the standard chartered, team viewer and rwandan deals as fair market value
Click to expand...
They are the rule makers, so they certainly have the right.

Whether it is right is a different matter. We’d have to prove we’ve been adversely affected by the rules for us to be successful.
 
Eds said:
Millions are being spent on legal fees to fight this case. One senior club source says the Premier League’s legal bill has more than quadrupled in the past year, from about £5million to north of £20million. They also point to the fact that since February the Premier League’s own legal department has been forced to shift its focus to this claim when it is also trying to prepare for the hearing into City’s 115 charges. “This is clearly a tactic,” the source said.
Click to expand...
Of course it’s a tactic. Khaldoon did warn them. I’m glad we are doing this. Something had to give, otherwise Masters and his American handlers will never stop. They wanted a war. They started a war. Now they have got a war. Game on!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don Howe said:
This should help club's image, sigh. Seems so unnecessary to me. Unless they've got real dirt, which I doubt. Exhausting being a City fan.

Is fair market value a bad thing, really? Or is it not being used fairly?
Click to expand...

It's one of those things where even if you win you're the bad guy.

People think related companies should pay fair sponsorships, that's clearly the majority opinion. They don't really care if the process by which the PL achieves that stands up to english law, they just want the end result.

So the absolute best case scenario is we win, the PL says "sorry we tried to bring in rules but City stopped it" and then it's our fault when Aramco pay Newcastle £350m/year.

Or we win, and then we use that judgment as a weapon against the PL. "Lets see what else we can dismantle" etc. or even because it's in 2 parts, we could win and then use the upcoming award of damages as a weapon. Effective - but not the actions of an innocent party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top