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

mac said:
Only one winner. CITY.
Click to expand...
Not been up long (Aussie time) and I had a vivid dream last night.
The PL and its red cartel want us gone, so does every footie fan who's not a blue.

In my dream I agree with Steffan I think we will lose this case and the 115. We get demoted to EFL and we end up in a super league playing in Europe and the USA.

It's funny how powerful a dream can be I almost believe it.

I hope to fuck I'm wrong.
 
The Chav's will be paying Capital Gains Tax on the sale of the hotel.

I know there's other tax "loopholes" that can diminish the liability but will HMRC just take it up the arse or launch a serious investigation into the abuse the Chav's are taking advantage of, they seem to be getting a free ride from the Premier League and UEFA, it's a piss take.
 
jrb said:
Does that mean City can sell the new hotel in the future, and any additional hotel or building City build on the Etihad Campus in the future, and use that money for the club? ;-)
Click to expand...

Yes. To ourselves, too.

The Sheikh's already on it, buying up all that discarded kalzip.
 
Last edited:
Here is my understanding of the current situation:

The Etihad deal was at £67.5M.
City apparently negotiated a new deal with Etihad at £80-85M.
Under the old Related Party rules, Etihad would not be deemed as a related party transaction, therefore the sponsorship amount would not be contested.
Under the new Associated Party Transactions, Etihad would be considered an Associated Party, therefore the PL would have a freehand on subjectively determining the value of the new deal.

City are contesting the replacement of the Related Party rules (established accounting definitions) by the newly invented ATP rules.

Aside from all that, City are well within their rights to revise the Etihad deal. The Sponsor valued City's front of shirt sponsorship alone, at £72.8M at the end of last season, so £80-85M looks easily fair value considering the other additional naming rights.
 

Attachments

  • 1000145436.jpg
    1000145436.jpg
    673.8 KB · Views: 145
Blue Citizen said:
Here is my understanding of the current situation:

The Etihad deal was at £67.5M.
City apparently negotiated a new deal with Etihad at £80-85M.
Under the old Related Party rules, Etihad would not be deemed as a related party transaction, therefore the sponsorship amount would not be contested.
Under the new Associated Party Transactions, Etihad would be considered an Associated Party, therefore the PL would have a freehand on subjectively determining the value of the new deal.

City are contesting the replacement of the Related Party rules (established accounting definitions) by the newly invented ATP rules.

Aside from all that, City are well within their rights to revise the Etihad deal. The Sponsor valued City's front of shirt sponsorship alone, at £72.8M at the end of last season, so £80-85M looks easily fair value considering the other additional naming rights.
Click to expand...

Yep that's about spot on..
 
Blue Citizen said:
Here is my understanding of the current situation:

The Etihad deal was at £67.5M.
City apparently negotiated a new deal with Etihad at £80-85M.
Under the old Related Party rules, Etihad would not be deemed as a related party transaction, therefore the sponsorship amount would not be contested.
Under the new Associated Party Transactions, Etihad would be considered an Associated Party, therefore the PL would have a freehand on subjectively determining the value of the new deal.

City are contesting the replacement of the Related Party rules (established accounting definitions) by the newly invented ATP rules.

Aside from all that, City are well within their rights to revise the Etihad deal. The Sponsor valued City's front of shirt sponsorship alone, at £72.8M at the end of last season, so £80-85M looks easily fair value considering the other additional naming rights.
Click to expand...

Then if there is any truth to the 'suing for loss' reports, City could in theory claim loss of 12-18m, if the initial hearing determines the rules illegal.
 
Just read the latest Mailonline article on us with Simon Jordan's quotes from his podcast about our PL case next week, again I was amazed at the amount of comments actually supporting us.

I actually think the tide is beginning to turn and if we win this case I think you will see a huge change in the league.
 
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