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

supercity88 said:
What Feb 24 amendment? We're challenging the 2021 rules.
Click to expand...
No, the articles all seem fairly consistent. There was a change this year with the 'associated party' bit being the changed thing. That's what is being challenged. And was done within weeks of it being voted on. It hasn't been implemented yet, it is supposed to come in from next seaon, and that's what the club are trying to stop. If they win, nothing changes. If they lose, a proposed change voted through will go ahead.

I am fairly confident in saying that btw.
 
Coatigan said:
Can't be. The timing simply doesn't allow for it.

The loss reportedly is a separate case, dependant on the outcome of the first, and claimed on the basis of delays to deals due to uncertainty around the rules, which can cover tany period from the initial challenge to the ultimate conclusion of the case. As I understand it.
Click to expand...

A separate case? I had just assumed a tribunal in two parts: principle then damages. You may be right :)
 
Coatigan said:
Does anyone else think this fucking sucks.

I just want to watch a bunch of guys kick a ball about, comment or read on their tactics and ability. Maybe see what new players come in, what the new kit looks like here and there, or what the stadium might become.

Instead, I need to read all this pish, about processes and tribunal X and so on and so on. Ffs football.
Click to expand...
I agree. I’m getting fed up of reading about it now. I think it’s doing a lot of damage to the league and the club.

Needs sorting out now, otherwise it’s going to drag on for years.
 
Coatigan said:
Not really. The challenge is not to the 2021 rules, it is to the February '24 amendment. It hasn't been building up for a while, it isn't retrospective. It happened at the time, and seems to be specific to that alone.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm struggling to see how they relate to the February 2024 amendment? All the reports link it to the FMV and related person rules introduced after Newcastle's takeover in 2021. We abstained from voting on the temporary ban on sponsorship and then subsequent introduction of those rules citing that they were unlawful - so clearly had sought legal advice at that point. Subsequently we will have been building our case based on those rules and with further changes that have been proposed and/or introduced subsequently have finally decided enough is enough and brought action.
 
arbabarshad said:
Arsenal can have emirates as a sponsor.
FA can have emirates as a sponsor.
But city cannot have etihad as a sponsor.
Seems like discrimination for city owners being from
UAE.
Click to expand...
It’s worse. We can have Etihad provided the PL sets the amount. Our contract with Etihad is effectively set aside when we try to renew it. Bonkers.
Reading between the lines, the PL has damaged us by invoking this rule and reducing the value of a contract or more than one, but they are not reducing the values at other clubs (guess US owned).
 
halfcenturyup said:
A separate case? I had just assumed a tribunal in two parts: principle then damages. You may be right :)
Click to expand...

Two parts is still separate and dependent on the first, but sure. That's my reading of it, could of course be wrong.
 
Coatigan said:
No, the articles all seem fairly consistent. There was a change this year with the 'associated party' bit being the changed thing. That's what is being challenged. And was done within weeks of it being voted on. It hasn't been implemented yet, it is supposed to come in from next seaon, and that's what the club are trying to stop. If they win, nothing changes. If they lose, a proposed change voted through will go ahead.

I am fairly confident in saying that btw.
Click to expand...

Posting at the same time, so I replied before reading this. Will go away and check as that's not been my understanding so far. I feel like the amendment has just led to us pressing the trigger, but could well be wrong.
 
Coatigan said:
No, the articles all seem fairly consistent. There was a change this year with the 'associated party' bit being the changed thing. That's what is being challenged. And was done within weeks of it being voted on. It hasn't been implemented yet, it is supposed to come in from next seaon, and that's what the club are trying to stop. If they win, nothing changes. If they lose, a proposed change voted through will go ahead.

I am fairly confident in saying that btw.
Click to expand...
Think they were Rules proposed in 21 finally passed in Feb this year
 
Vic said:
Bottom line on this case? Disguising owner investment as sponsorship by a related company doesn't sound a particularly good thing, but does the case really go to the anti-competitive rules against owner investment that make related party sponsorship a way round those unfair rules?

It should be fairly easy to show that the rules were designed to restrict new entrants to a cartel, and not about financial sustainability when prospective owners could buy clubs with money they hadn't got and load the club with debt while personally taking money out of revenue after servicing the debt (and with some overvalued sponsorship - e.g. Chevrolet).
Click to expand...
The rags Chevrolet deal was the biggest pisstake ever, so bad the guy who gave the go ahead WAS SACKED !!
 
supercity88 said:
Sorry, I'm struggling to see how they relate to the February 2024 amendment? All the reports link it to the FMV and related person rules introduced after Newcastle's takeover in 2021. We abstained from voting on the temporary ban on sponsorship and then subsequent introduction of those rules citing that they were unlawful - so clearly had sought legal advice at that point. Subsequently we will have been building our case based on those rules and with further changes that have been proposed and/or introduced subsequently have finally decided enough is enough and brought action.
Click to expand...

The reports all link it to the Associated Party change. Some try to link it to the 2021 rules, but then some try link it to the 115 case too, as a delay tactic, resource drain, deal offer etc.

Maybe it can indeed extend back to 2021, who knows. We have only heard one side of this. But I think it is pretty clear it was a reaction to the feb24 change, either way.
 
Someone tell me that this isn't anti competitive.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240605_111150_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20240605_111150_Samsung Internet.jpg
    522.1 KB · Views: 119
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