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

urban genie said:
So Lawtons wife works at Arsenal and accidentaly left details of the court case on the breakfast table?
Whay wenare contesting was reported first in feb with no onenreally arsed bar a few 115 comments.
Liverpools sponsor found to be terroritst funding dodgy cunts

Tory press office tactic this or sensationaism to bury bad news imho
Click to expand...
Owen Slot's wife, not Lawton's, she's chief commercial officer at Arsenal.
 
An example of breaching fair market value was receiving 200k for a house on a street where all other houses sold for 90 to 110k which at face value seems logical.

However if you're very confident in your abilities and see such potential for the house that 200k isn't an issue and you are prepared to gamble on setting a new standard for the street where other houses might then invest to improve too etc... then who is to say that is a bad or unfair value?

It's a very insular way of looking at things and only measuring value at the present time rather than potential value further down the line.

Great businesses tend to be better at spotting potential than most of their competition. Most of city's deals maybhave raised eyebrows initially but few can argue that they would be deemed good value now.

The related parties issue is also potentially discriminatory for regions where families are larger and often operate closely. Of course one man might sponsor a sibling's club. But there is also an element of prejudice regarding other cultures which means a Chinese company will be deemed 'government run' either officially or unofficially. The same with the middle east. It's all 'dirty oil money' and state backed.
 
Bez said:
I have challenged the BBC's latest biased piece about City because it does not note that the 115 breaches are allegations.

The original text is...

The move comes a matter of months before a Premier League disciplinary commission will hear over 100 charges against City for breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009.

I have suggested they change it to...

The move comes a matter of months before a Premier League disciplinary commission will hear over 100 charges against City for allegedly breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009.

Some may see this as trivial, but as a licence payer I want to see that the BBC still retains some integrity and correct them when they show bias against City....
Click to expand...
I've had a small victory. The BBC have amended the article by Simon Stone as per my request. Just trying to keep the BBC fair and unbiased.
www.bbc.com

Man City legal action: Champions to face Premier League over financial rules

Manchester City are scheduled to face the Premier League in a legal battle over the organisation’s commercial rules next week.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
FanchesterCity said:
An example of breaching fair market value was receiving 200k for a house on a street where all other houses sold for 90 to 110k which at face value seems logical.

However if you're very confident in your abilities and see such potential for the house that 200k isn't an issue and you are prepared to gamble on setting a new standard for the street where other houses might then invest to improve too etc... then who is to say that is a bad or unfair value?

It's a very insular way of looking at things and only measuring value at the present time rather than potential value further down the line.

Great businesses tend to be better at spotting potential than most of their competition. Most of city's deals maybhave raised eyebrows initially but few can argue that they would be deemed good value now.

The related parties issue is also potentially discriminatory for regions where families are larger and often operate closely. Of course one man might sponsor a sibling's club. But there is also an element of prejudice regarding other cultures which means a Chinese company will be deemed 'government run' either officially or unofficially. The same with the middle east. It's all 'dirty oil money' and state backed.
Click to expand...
And who will get to decide on these vague, arbitrary parameters? ...yes you've guessed it...
 
wolviedinho said:
So far today:

City have destroyed the premier league.

City have destroyed the lower leagues from getting a financial deal.

City have destroyed Arsenal again.

City made standard charter sponsor terrorists.

City made a only fans pornstar throw milk at Nigel.

City got Gail platt sacked from coronation street.

City have…

On a serious note, the level of vitriol from the media is horrendous. No amount of in-house PR team could cope with the level of lies and accusations thrown at us. No way of stopping this new online phenomenon. Some day a thesis will be written on this topic.
Click to expand...
The press are feeding the morons with their daily dose of barmy stories and in return the press get clicks and engagement and ultimately lots of money for their gutter journalism. It all reminds me of a story I saw on the front cover of the Daily Sport years ago where it was reported that someone had seen a cow pat that looked like Elvis. Now that's a proper story.
 
Paul1970 said:
Yes but if they speak out then fuck em as they should be all over this mate .
Click to expand...
Can see both sides of that argument.

We have launched the case against the PL and have become 100% hated and if we lose the case our reputation is destroyed, Villa, Newcastle etc will sit on the fence with a big bag of popcorn, if we win their chances of becoming serious clubs are increased considerably.
 
MCC said:
City should really boil some piss and announce some new large sponsorship deals with companies not from the UAE. Khaldoon's blackbook of contacts must be off the scale.
Click to expand...

Only if those companies then announce huge deals with Etihad.

Fuck them, make them squirm.
 
KS55 said:
Somebody will correct me if I am wrong but I think the PL will examine ANY sponsorship deal under the Feb rule change, not just ‘Associated’.
Click to expand...
No, they check every deal to see if it’s “associated” and if it is, then they look to fair market.

I think City’s main challenge is using “associated” rather than the generally accepted accounting rules used in the U.K. and Europe which are “related”.
 
SWP's back said:
No, they check every deal to see if it’s “associated” and if it is, then they look to fair market.

I think City’s main challenge is using “associated” rather than the generally accepted accounting rules used in the U.K. and Europe which are “related”.
Click to expand...
I think the problem that city have with the pls rules is that they are too broad and opaque which puts you at risk of being punished for something you didnt even know was a breach of the rules and when you are not convinced that the governing party is not acting in good faith then that becomes a massive problem.
 
SWP's back said:
No, they check every deal to see if it’s “associated” and if it is, then they look to fair market.

I think City’s main challenge is using “associated” rather than the generally accepted accounting rules used in the U.K. and Europe which are “related”.
Click to expand...

I think this is true, but just to add to it a bit. The drafting of 'associated party' is extraordinarily wide. I presume City are arguing that the wording catches US sponsorship deals for US-owned club just as it covers UAE sponsorship deals for us, but that it's being applied in a discriminatory manner so that only the latter are reviewed. We'll see.

The hysterical reaction in the media is risible. City prevail only if the PL has been/is acting unlawfully, you cunts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose there are two issues. Firstly, if the rules are anti-competitive and secondly, whether certain exemptions from competition law should be made in this case because it's a sporting body.

The first is completely factual with legal precedent and what other clubs think is irrelevant. The second may be influenced by the views of other clubs, I suppose.

I still can't get my head around the fact that such issues can be settled by an arbitration within the PL rules. Can they set legal precedent (say, in regard to the special situation of the PL in competition law? That has never been legally tested as far as I am aware)? With arbitrators from a list chosen by the chairman of a judicial panel chosen by the PL? I struggle with all that.
Click to expand...
The first bit is an interesting take. Has that ever happened before though? Where a sector or a particular business or industry operates outwith the law just because its members want to?

It can work the other way. I.e there are plenty of performance enhancing supplements that are legal generally, but not legal on sport. But to accept something not in line with general law? Sounds a bit uneasy.

Agree entirely with your last bit. Which is why I kept refusing to believe it ;).
 
willipp said:
You have to laugh at the spin the media are putting on this. Apparently now it’s our fault the PL won’t agree a deal with the EFL.

Maybe this is why VAR is so bad, why Everton and Forrest failed PSR, why Russia invaded Ukraine.
Click to expand...
The clubs pathetic media team and PR dept to blame for years of inaction and letting everyone publish such crap without comment. The softly softly approach has not worked, which we have seen for years yet the club still allows all cretins in the media into the ground.
 
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