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

Impeccable One said:
Did I read somewhere that PL APT rules also apply to transfers ? such that City couldn’t buy on the cheap from another CFG team and also couldn’t sell on an inflated value to another CFG team, with the onus being on City to prove the values are appropriate ? and if the PL decided the values were not correct they could adjust what City are allowed to spend ?
Click to expand...
Yes. The contract would have to be amended to the number the PL makes up and the club can face a charge for "trying it on".
 
mancboy said:
This and only this is what the system cannot work, value is entirely subjective, what is of value to you may not be of value to me and vice versa and no singular person or independent entity has the right, experience or skillset to decide what is value or not.
Click to expand...

A bit more detail around what the partnership was doing. It was far from just names on shirts.

www.mancity.com

City and Etihad announce 10 year partnership

Manchester City Football Club and Etihad Airways have today announced a 10-year comprehensive partnership agreement significantly expanding their existing commercial relationship.
www.mancity.com www.mancity.com
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
What's stupid about the PSR rules is that Villa, via their participation in the CL will earn significantly more revenue, probably over 25% more than the £218m they reported in 2022/23. Yet they're not allowed to spend that money because of their cumulative losses for the previous 3 years.

It's like winning the lottery or getting a decent inheritance, then being told you can't spend it because you had an overdraft 2 years ago.
Click to expand...

Which is, in effect, what they wanted to say to City, when we won the lottery :)
 
While they take history into account at least in the brand profile, sponsors are mainly driven by exposure. Our shirt appears in the US, the most lucrative market of all, more than any other. We are top dogs on US TV.
 
cheekybids said:
A bit more detail around what the partnership was doing. It was far from just names on shirts.

www.mancity.com

City and Etihad announce 10 year partnership

Manchester City Football Club and Etihad Airways have today announced a 10-year comprehensive partnership agreement significantly expanding their existing commercial relationship.
www.mancity.com www.mancity.com
Click to expand...
Yep, these rules aren't just anti-competition, they're anti-innovation. There's loads of potential value adds that could be incorporated into these partnerships, but because some dinosaur at PL headquarters can't see beyond front-of-shirt sponsorships we all have to keep plodding along the same old path.
 
Dubai Blue said:
Yep, these rules aren't just anti-competition, they're anti-innovation. There's loads of potential value adds that could be incorporated into these partnerships, but because some dinosaur at PL headquarters can't see beyond front-of-shirt sponsorships we all have to keep plodding along the same old path.
Click to expand...


Great results attached.

I also saw they’d increased US market by 28% & when you consider City’s popularity in the states, using an airline that people are familiar with through brand recognition is obviously proof the strategy worked.

 
Prestwich_Blue said:
What's stupid about the PSR rules is that Villa, via their participation in the CL will earn significantly more revenue, probably over 25% more than the £218m they reported in 2022/23. Yet they're not allowed to spend that money because of their cumulative losses for the previous 3 years.

It's like winning the lottery or getting a decent inheritance, then being told you can't spend it because you had an overdraft 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
Villa and Newcastle should get round the blocks by borrowing from their owners where possible. Worth noting that CFG some time ago arranged a £500m line of credit from a consortium of banks. That money will be used for infrastructure projects both physical and IT which we will use, paying a fee for IT where necessary. There are lots of arrangements possible for beating roadblocks. They need to be creative.
It should be remembered that clubs have just one set of income and any of that which is used for non ffp purposes, leaves more for spend on the team. I read on a site the other day that the poster couldn’t understand why the PL knocking us back would leave less for womens and youth football “because those activities are not subject to ffp.” D’oh.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
What's stupid about the PSR rules is that Villa, via their participation in the CL will earn significantly more revenue, probably over 25% more than the £218m they reported in 2022/23. Yet they're not allowed to spend that money because of their cumulative losses for the previous 3 years.

It's like winning the lottery or getting a decent inheritance, then being told you can't spend it because you had an overdraft 2 years ago.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point though, as they can't spend it's unlikely they will qualify next season or progress very far in Europe meaning future spend is also limited. Also screws up our coefficient in Europe stopping a 5th English club earning EUFA cash.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
That’s what I thought.
Didn’t CAS say we weren't related and also that it was FMV or am I getting that wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes but that was under UefA rules who are still using IAS 24 to identify RPT's not the new bullshit rules installed by the Premier League of APT's with associated underbiddder requirements and City having to proove that the deal is FMV.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The thing that gets me about these APT rules (along with the definition and the club's requirement to prove FMV, which are both on shaky ground, I would imagine) is that the PL don't just want to adjust the income if they think it is overstated (which is already fraught with difficulty), they want the club and the sponsor to alter the terms of the sponsorship contract or cancel it(!).

I can't imagine it's legal for a regulatory body to tell two independent companies which commercial contracts they can enter into, and on what terms. I find it hard to believe any tribunal will allow a third party to do that?

I may be wrong, of course, but surely not?
Click to expand...

Whether they are legal or not, or rather against competition law (the arbitrators will decide), they certainly don't appear within the spirit of competition law. And are arguably prejudicial by default. Because the starting point is, that the deals are designed to circumnavigate regulations.

If the default position is that owners would try inflate deals and that needs regulated, then legal or not, the rule is inherently biased to certain clubs.



To me It would be a bit like saying players from certain countries need to submit upfront doping tests, the rest it is periodic random selection. I.e it almost presumes they are starting off with intent to gain an advantage while the rest are not.
 
Last edited:
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