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

[halfcenturyup]

I am not trying to suggest anyone in particular is leaking I simply don’t know all I am trying to suggest is it’s best to keep an open mind.
Of course not all but I had dealings many years ago with a Barrister and he had the loosest tongue you could imagine he was playing Billy Big ones and
Bear in mind all the info in this matter has been shared with clubs

Well possibly. But, in my mind at least, if the PL has been given permission by the arbitrators to communicate about the case with the clubs, then it is their responsibility to make sure it stays confidential. I am pretty sure the arbitrators have been hugely embarrassed by the leak and will take the PL to task for it.

Of course. What goes on in my mind is a mystery even to me sometimes :)

 

[invisibleandalone]

I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely? (Pace Kieron Maguire)
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.
Despite the proceedings being confidential, I can see no reason why City should not state their case in public, at least in general terms.

And imagine the twist of the facts when the media manipulate every statement on a daily basis.

 

[cheekybids]

All good points, but the PL don't have to conclude the club is state-owned to apply the APT rules.

View attachment 122639
View attachment 122640

Let's not forget who Mansour's brother is.....

It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.

This is their definition of material influence, btw:

View attachment 122642

I’d imagine the US billionaires also materially influence their sponsors / partners with shareholdings.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

There is much comment on how the IC will treat the PL's lack of control of the leaked information and how they will treat the party to the arbitration because of it. It would seem they'll get a nasty finger wagged at them, if the similarly leaked information from UEFA in actual court proceedings, is anything to go by. In other words "Nothing".

There will be some vague promise of internal review or internal investigation and that will be it. Rank bad faith treated as normal in so far as CIty is concerned, again.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.

 

[Blueeye]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

 

[Bodicoteblue]

I’d imagine the US billionaires also materially influence their sponsors / partners with shareholdings.

A spot of jiggery-pokery with shares and share dealing!?!
Not round Tottenham way surely?

 

[KS55]

1. No
2. Maybe
3. What makes you think they haven't passed any of them?

Re 3 as I said, I am guessing since City have not given their side, but we do know something has been knocked back if we are claiming damages.

 

[Phil1]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

All of those things have been achieved in spite of the Premier league opposition clubs attempting to destabilise the club in cahoots with those who run the game.
Also, this notion we can buy who we want when we want has been disproven pretty much every single transfer window over the last 5 years or so.
We aren’t going to war, those are the words used by simpletons. We feel we are being unfairly targeted and have every reason to put it out there, successful or not.

 

[whipper]

They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.

Does he have various aliases, and a smashed window at his home?

 

[remember arthur mann]

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

You don't understand why we're challenging a rule brought in by the PL in Feb 24 that will likely substantially affect our current and future income generation through sponsorship so that we cannot spend any money on transfers that doesn't affect any of our direct Competitors?
What exactly don't you understand?

 

[Chris in London]

It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.

It seems probable that the club’s allegation that these rules were specifically targeted at City is what was behind the recent disclosure order requiring the PL to disclose all their emails etc relating to Manchester City.

The interesting feature of that particular direction is that it came so close before the hearing that started last week. It strikes me as probable that the direction was made at a much earlier stage and was appealed, with the outcome of the case coming shortly before the arbitration.

 

[ufo]

They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.

mad hatter?

 

[Ste68]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

Because the new rules would leave us having most of our sponsorship deals being valued by a group of rival clubs as to what they believe "fair value" is. They could choose not to sanction commercial deals we consider crucial to growing the business and devalue a 10 year sponsorship deal for us which we are stuck with as opposed to waving through American owned clubs sponsorship deals with US based companies. Think we have lost all Trust in the process that would mean this would happen fairly.

 

[cheekybids]

They've got a bloke on rawk who actually breaks down the charges for that lot. Sounds like a wannabe financial analyst but he's clearly just copy and pasting, not understanding, then telling everyone City are guilty.

Sounds like a few of our visitors from there.

 

[cheekybids]

It seems probable that the club’s allegation that these rules were specifically targeted at City is what was behind the recent disclosure order requiring the PL to disclose all their emails etc relating to Manchester City.

The interesting feature of that particular direction is that it came so close before the hearing that started last week. It strikes me as probable that the direction was made at a much earlier stage and was appealed, with the outcome of the case coming shortly before the arbitration.

lol that’s a non-cooperation surely…

 

[KS55]

The point in proceedings of this nature is that you argue absolutely everything, leaving no stone unturned. We unquestionably will be basing our case on "business grounds', but that doesn't preclude us from running other arguments, too. You can take it on trust that, if that's how Lord Pannick and his colleagues are playing it, they know what they're doing (which doesn't necessarily mean they'll win).

The point is that, sometimes, the court/panel/tribunal or whatever might not be convinced to the necessary degree by the main argument alone, but what you refer to as the "more nebulous" arguments act cumulatively to push one over the line.

Absolutely correct, but the emphasis or lead argument is influential. I can only go by others’ comments as I have not seen City’s briefing paper. Comments talk about our view that the rules differentiate unfairly between M.E. and elsewhere but don’t talk about direct business factors.

 

[ufo]

Have read all the posts on this .but no wiser than when I started.dont understand why we're going down this route.we seem to be able to buy any player we want .we are winning trophies every year .breaking records every year.made 80 Million profit last year.can not see why we are going to war with the majority of other clubs .unless im missing something

Yes you are missing your red shirt forum.

 

[petrusha]

Absolutely correct, but the emphasis or lead argument is influential. I can only go by others’ comments as I have not seen City’s briefing paper. Comments talk about our view that the rules differentiate unfairly between M.E. and elsewhere but don’t talk about direct business factors.

What's been produced so far is a pitifully small summary of a far longer document, summarised for public consumption by bad-faith journalists who aren't qualified to undertake the task and who are in the pocket of direct rival clubs who want to see us kneecapped as a result of the exercise currently under way. The emphasis is what these cunts reckon will be of greatest interest to the stultifyingly ignorant sheep supporting those rivals. IMO, nothing whatsoever can be inferred from it.