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

[SWP's back]

Gab Marcotti, who I normally have a high regard of, on his podcast this week was total out of depth when talking about the arbitration case between City and PL
In his view
It will have an affect on the 115 case
Mansour and KAM are not football fans
He sees this as an exit strategy from City

Tbf both myself and @Prestwich_Blue did challenge him on his ESPN article where he showed he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about (in a cordial manner) and he liked PB’s reply to my comment.

 

[hello]

rag ;-)


As much as their dislike of Qatar and Yemens Houthis may get them co-operating are we sure the UAE and Saudis are that friendly with each other to mutually benefit each team

Replace Qatar with the rags and Yemen's Houthis with the dippers and there's enough scope for cooperation ;)

 

[mayo31]

That’s the power of social media. It’s a modern day evil. Post something on X or whatever it’s called and it instantly becomes an irrefutable fact. Social media gives a voice to some people who shouldn’t have a voice. The other problem being we don’t have any PR strategy whatsoever. We just sit there and take the mountains of shit that gets thrown at us on a daily basis, without any form of rebuttal or without even attempting to defend ourselves. It does become very draining for us fans. That’s for sure.

I think our PR is elsewhere and not in the UK

They know us over here will attend the games, the ground is full no matter what anyone says

The PR is elsewhere, despite all of this lets use the USA as an example, we have the highest viewing attendances over there than any other club and we are growing like wildfire over there, same in other countries.

The narrative is set here in the UK, why fight it i guess, that is our job. I happy to do that actually on social media and in grounds etc

 

[bluemoon32]

How can the PL decide on fair value of sponsorships for ManCity. We are in unprecedented territory. the treble then the 4 peat. Also world champions. The flagship club of a global franchise.
A billion over 10 years for stadium rights isn’t out of the question. Pl will say it is. Competition between club and PL on sponsorship is a conflict of interest.
I honestly think City should be using the super league as a threat including a few Middle East teams.
The PL are on shaky ground when. City, Chelsea, villa and Newcastle team up.
I am unsure why Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are not with us on this? They will find it hard to rebuild under current financial rules. They got fined already.

Why would we ever want to play in that ?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ineos would be a related party anyway surely.

It’s difficult without seeing the full submission but personally I do think there needs to be some regulation around associated parties (well, there does now because they allowed the Newcastle sale through, the right answer would have been never allowing that to happen), it sounds like the PL have overreached with it though.

I used to have that view. That I was uneasy about the connections the people at board level have and how that would generate income. But, trust me, any unease I had has been blown away by their never ending attempts to stop the club. And let's not forget Liverpool benefitted from contacts with Littlewoods that nobody else could ever get and United got benefits from their listing that other clubs couldn't have at the time. Now it's our time.

 

[117 M34]

How can the PL decide on fair value of sponsorships for ManCity. We are in unprecedented territory. the treble then the 4 peat. Also world champions. The flagship club of a global franchise.
A billion over 10 years for stadium rights isn’t out of the question. Pl will say it is. Competition between club and PL on sponsorship is a conflict of interest.
I honestly think City should be using the super league as a threat including a few Middle East teams.
The PL are on shaky ground when. City, Chelsea, villa and Newcastle team up.
I am unsure why Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are not with us on this? They will find it hard to rebuild under current financial rules. They got fined already.

I'd argue that the 'value' of the sponsorship would also be different depending on which company was doing the sponsoring.
If sponsoring city increases a companies revenue by £20m, then the sponsorship is easily worth £10m.
For another company with the exact same sponsorship, it might only increase their revenue by £1m then it's clearly not worth £10m.

 

[Damocles]

They need to have a word with them about who Emirates sponsor.

I don't believe that Emirates or Etihad operate like this, with this level of management from the Sheikhs in power.

But let's be mischievous for one moment and suggest that they're "open to requests". One of the things that @projectriver pointed out on his TalkSport segment the other day that I think has gone WAY under the radar from the discussion is that the Premier League commercial revenues are beginning to flatline. The league has to give away more games in bigger packages just to get the same TV deal. Title sponsorships such as front of shirt have been hugely affected recently - he pointed out Villa, Chelsea and a few others, because without betting companies then the competition for the price has dropped and ultimately some clubs are struggling to get the value they wish for those high revenue items to where Chelsea have played games without a sponsor.

Again, just being mischievous here but I'd argue that if we really WERE owned by "the UAE" which we're clearly not then them also holding the title sponsorship of one of our biggest competitive rivals is probably something that will exert more and more soft power in the future as those values start dropping.

 

[Paladin]

I think the problem is that the Premier League and most of the media (print and visual) are businesses. As businesses they need to make a profit, to make a profit you need to sell something at a profit (I watch Dragons Den!) It's obvious that the Red Top teams are what sells (for now) and the Premier League and media need their matches to matter so they can get more in sponsorship, selling rights and clicks. City have totally fucked up their business model and I've changed my mind, I think we will win this case.

They might have a more healthy profit margin if they didn't have a £20m legal fee to pay.

 

[domalino]

I can't understand why some would abstain on something so fundamental to the finance of the game. They don't deserve to have a vote IMHO.

City abstained on the previous vote, there’s loads of good reasons why a club would do it.

 

[meltonblue]

I used to have that view. That I was uneasy about the connections the people at board level have and how that would generate income. But, trust me, any unease I had has been blown away by their never ending attempts to stop the club. And let's not forget Liverpool benefitted from contacts with Littlewoods that nobody else could ever get and United got benefits from their listing that other clubs couldn't have at the time. Now it's our time.

And I had the exact same view right up to the time they allowed the Newcastle deal through.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

That's what happened with the Deputy PM and the Vice President roles in the UAE. Sheikh Zayed, the founder of the UAE and Sheikh Mansour's Dad negotiated the tribes coming together in the first place and divvied up different roles for different families. DPM was a shared role between two families. The Vice President was more interesting because it was supposed to be the "other" family from the President. So the Al Nayhan's had the Presidency while the Al Maktoum's had the Vice Presidency, representing the two most powerful tribes/families in the UAE at formation.

Sheikh Mohammed, the current President and Mansour's elder brother, broke with this tradition/promises and created the Vice Presidency as a shared role now where there's an Al Nayhan (Mansour) and an Al Maktoum (Mohammed Al Maktoum from the Dubai ruling family) who jointly perform it. This is important because the VP position was always promised to the ruler of Dubai alone.

Many see this as a power grab, some others see this as a punishment for the Dubai financial crisis in 2009 whereby the Emirate almost fell into bankruptcy and had to be bailed out by Abu Dhabi which hurt the image of the UAE to investors. Punishment in 2022 for events in 2009 are not considered a particularly long wait for "revenge" in these types of cultures. One of the reasons that I always remind people that Abu Dhabi and the slander they've suffered through Man City won't be forgotten, they just don't react quickly but they'll make their move eventually. It might be two decades but they have long memories of this stuff.

Keep calm &........









Crush em !!

 

[levets]

They’re a pair of clowns.
Both despise our club
Fuck ‘em

To be fair, Marcotti was one of the few journalists who stated that CAS had found us not guilty on all allegations, bar non cooperation. And said anybody who thinks different are idiots.

 

[train man]

I am unsure why Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are not with us on this? They will find it hard to rebuild under current financial rules. They got fined already.

Maybe because their owners want to withdraw all possible profit, rather than re-invest for the longer term and their sponsors, or sponsorship values, are apparently not subject to the same scrutiny as ours, hmm...

 

[cheekybids]

I don't believe that Emirates or Etihad operate like this, with this level of management from the Sheikhs in power.

But let's be mischievous for one moment and suggest that they're "open to requests". One of the things that @projectriver pointed out on his TalkSport segment the other day that I think has gone WAY under the radar from the discussion is that the Premier League commercial revenues are beginning to flatline. The league has to give away more games in bigger packages just to get the same TV deal. Title sponsorships such as front of shirt have been hugely affected recently - he pointed out Villa, Chelsea and a few others, because without betting companies then the competition for the price has dropped and ultimately some clubs are struggling to get the value they wish for those high revenue items to where Chelsea have played games without a sponsor.

Again, just being mischievous here but I'd argue that if we really WERE owned by "the UAE" which we're clearly not then them also holding the title sponsorship of one of our biggest competitive rivals is probably something that will exert more and more soft power in the future as those values start dropping.

I agree & was being a bit mischievous. It is funny how Emirates sponsorship never gets any criticism, you imagine them in Dubai sniggering that they get great press.

 

[Stoned Rose]

That’s the power of social media. It’s a modern day evil. Post something on X or whatever it’s called and it instantly becomes an irrefutable fact. Social media gives a voice to some people who shouldn’t have a voice. The other problem being we don’t have any PR strategy whatsoever. We just sit there and take the mountains of shit that gets thrown at us on a daily basis, without any form of rebuttal or without even attempting to defend ourselves. It does become very draining for us fans. That’s for sure.

I’m the opposite with this.

The constant crying and city this city that makes me buzz.

The power we have over these people is absolutely delicious.

 

[SWP's back]

City abstained on the previous vote, there’s loads of good reasons why a club would do it.

Some journalists say we abstained. More say we voted against it.

 

[abu13]

Am i right thinking the rags are the only Plc in the PL?

 

[Mottram40]

Why would we ever want to play in that.

 

[Keeper!]

I listened to the Podcast but must have missed the references to the backdating of the rules. Does anyone have a timestamp?

Remember us under PJ Swales, just before season ticket deadline day we were always linked to a big money transfer, amazingly they never came off ;)

View attachment 108991

100% spot on

Completely agree but sadly and mostly to the cost of the country, if your not wearing a suit, walking into an office and earning 50k a year your a loser.

I have total respect of anyone that does manual work, engineering, mechanics, nurses,delivery drivers, careers etc but incredibly there seems to be a narrative against those people and there wages are simply too low for what they do.

One thing the covid situation showed for me is who are the important people are in the real world.

Without doctors, nurses, delivery drives, shopkeeper/shop workers, food producers the country would have ground to a halt.

Most offices were closed for a long time, everything seem to carry on fairly well even so.

So Kevin Maguire has said that under the associated party rules min 3.20 , neither City or Newcastle can be sponsored by any businesses in the UAE or Saudi but other PL clubs can ?? Have i understood that correctly?? But other clubs can and have been sponsored by companies and even by their owners. And its backdated by three years. Clearly that is fundamentally wrong!

 

[Stoned Rose]

There are two other points that the anti City ignoramuses overlook.

1) SM is just one of three deputy prime ministers of the UAE.

2) SM can never become prime minister of the UAE because that post is reserved exclusively for the ruler of Dubai. When the ruler of Dubai dies his heir takes over the role of prime minister of the UAE.

Grecian 2000 enjoys this.