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

Kazzydeyna said:
Just a quick question to those who are disappointed in our club taking this action.
What would you have them do instead? Would you have them meekly accept that our commercial and sporting rivals - an executive of one of which who has apparently made, let’s be charitable here, “discriminatory noises” about our club and executive team/ownership - should also have the right to decide how much sponsorship City are allowed to have? And from whom it should come?

We have tried that for 16 years and been progressively and repeatedly slapped down by the PL. Over and over again.

What more could the club do without finally resorting to the law? How many more insults should they accept? How many more sponsorships should they see go begging on account of the PL’s blatant racism (at worst) or protectionism (at best)?

How many more times should our executive team see their efforts to build this team, this club, this deprived area of Manchester and all its’ inhabitants up to world class standards be stymied because they are too brown/too Muslim/too good at it whilst our rivals see much bigger deals being waived through on a nod, a wink, a straight arm salute?

Win or lose this action I for one am more than proud of my clubs actions today. I’m humbled by it.

We didn’t start this fight. We tried to stop it ever becoming a fight. We tried to be decent and professional about it. We failed because we were never going to be allowed to succeed.

Thst is what the law is for. And I am glad, proud, and relieved that this club, my club, our club, have finally said “Enough. This far and not one step further”

If that makes no marks and twats on social media give you a hard time, stand up and fight for your club.
They’re fighting for you.
Click to expand...
Many many likes
 
After browsing social media, there's so many thick twats out there. Fucking hell, it like swimming in a sea of imbeciles.

Desperate attempt by the American cartel to leak this. I feel this is another smear campaign tactic to put more pressure on our club to settle for a compromise agreement.

We're going to see more media sycophants protecting and promoting the February ruling as "good for the game" and continue to tarnish our image on social and mainstream media. Absolute pricks!

I'm very confident the Club will beat this.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Did we pay Mancini off the books from another account - probably yes.
Click to expand...
There was a contract in place between Mancini (or a company he was presumably associated with, either as shareholder/director) and the Al Jazira football club.

But UEFA knew this because of the Der Spiegel stories yet chose not to do anything. They didn't know at the time what was or wasn't time-barred so you'd imagine that if they felt there was any impropriety they would have brought charges relating to this.
 
mrbelfry said:
It's fair until it's not. Suppose for example there is a system in place that goes something like this

1) Clubs can raise money through sponsorship of their stadiums, shirts, noodles etc
2) Where a club owner has a related interest in the organisation sponsoring the club this must be noted in the accounts
3) when a sponsorship is from a related party a FMV test is applied and the value maybe amended in a subset of the accounts

Then we get into murky water
4) if the sponsoring organisation is not a related party it may be an associated party. An association can be very broad but let's limit it to one based on geography. If the club owner and the sponsoring organisation all originate from the same country they are associated.
5) in the case of an associated party transaction the deals are subject to further scrutiny and may be prohibited or capped (I think)
6) oh by the way just because you're American and the sponsoring organisation is American it doesn't necessarily mean it's an associated transaction
7) oh you're from a gulf state? Oh definitely associated then
8) therefore out of the 20 teams in the league 2 teams are subject to greater sponsorship scrutiny and caps than the other 18.
9) Etihad could sponsor United for £5billion a year but only be allowed to sponsor City for £50million based on country of origin
10) also we have to send details of our sponsors and 2 failed sponsors to the premier league who are also sponsored by potentially competing organisations in the same industry. The premier league also seems to have difficulty keeping things confidential.

It's fair until the majority uses their power against the minority
Click to expand...
Who in the PL decides what is an associated party? Do you know if it is a panel and who makes up that panel?

With regards to you points 6 and 7, is there any evidence that they have or can discriminate against Gulf sates compared to the US ? Or is that just your speculation? Thanks
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There was a contract in place between Mancini (or a company he was presumably associated with, either as shareholder/director) and the Al Jazira football club.

But UEFA knew this because of the Der Spiegel stories yet chose not to do anything. They didn't know at the time what was or wasn't time-barred so you'd imagine that if they felt there was any impropriety they would have brought charges relating to this.
Click to expand...
But this was before FFP right? So like Costigan says what would be the point ?
 
PistonBlue said:
Sorry, probably a silly question, but what is the difference in the two terms?
Click to expand...

Related party is defined in International Accounting Standards, is used in every set of accounts on the planet in a well-understood and consistent manner and is based on control, joint control, or significant influence (iirc).

Associated party, in this context, is a term invented by the PL only for these purposes and includes basically anyone you or any of your family ever had dinner with.

So, one is a widely accepted accounting term. The other is bollocks.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Who in the PL decides what is an associated party? Do you know if it is a panel and who makes up that panel?

With regards to you points 6 and 7, is there any evidence that they have or can discriminate against Gulf sates compared to the US ? Or is that just your speculation? Thanks
Click to expand...
I think its speculative but ask yourself this was there any outcry about associated parties when the rags signed a deal with chevrolet which was so ridiculous that it got the person that signed it off sacked, american company , american owners.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Who in the PL decides what is an associated party? Do you know if it is a panel and who makes up that panel?

With regards to you points 6 and 7, is there any evidence that they have or can discriminate against Gulf sates compared to the US ? Or is that just your speculation? Thanks
Click to expand...

Timing wise it seems the rules we’re challenging were specifically brought it to stop Newcastle - with after effects on us. There were also no PL financial rules prior to the City takeover. Specific updates to these rules also seem to directly apply to City’s business strategy.
 
Ric said:
The hearing isn't in Harrogate. There is a PL meeting in Harrogate.
Click to expand...
Ahhh sorry ric I must of read it wrong, also media leaks like in the times must be influencing this panel who have to decide are case, I just feel the whole thing is an absolute mess, but one thing is for sure and that is there is gonna be a big loser and I fear it could be us on the end of it,
 
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