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

Ste68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly, feels like we have finally bit back at the snake
 
Ste68 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Plus the fact if we have to get other quotes to justify our chosen sponsor - we’ve done the research for our rivals who could zone in on the sponsors we’ve discarded!!
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
That’s good.
Having got your head around that, what do you think of the fact that 2/3 of the league voted in these rules that in effect nobble us.
Rules that don’t seem to have any business benefits for the league in general and this majority seem to be more interested in stopping our gallop than actually supporting football.
They are almost being tyrannical in their dominant position, you could say. Not being equitable or perhaps more accurately, clubbing together not for the good of all. Too influenced by a cartel really.

Do you think an independent regulator would govern in the same manner?
Click to expand...
They couldn't be any worse
 
petrusha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which is why City are also demanding a pound of flesh if we are successful.

Being paid damages sets an almighty precedent for an acquittal later this year.

If we want reparation from the Premier League for impacting sponsorship deals, goodness knows what the millions would run in to for reputational damage as a result of the 115 charges?

They have come after the source of our money while leaving themselves open to their own vault.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Which is why City are also demanding a pound of flesh if we are successful.

Being paid damages sets an almighty precedent for an acquittal later this year.

If we want reparation from the Premier League for impacting sponsorship deals, goodness knows what the millions would run in to for reputational damage as a result of the 115 charges?

They have come after the source of our money while leaving themselves open to their own vault.
Click to expand...
I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
 
KS55 said:
I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
Click to expand...

I would be stunned if there isnt one juicy comment or negative comment about gulf money or stopping City or changing rules etc in their emails or whatsapp.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Which is why City are also demanding a pound of flesh if we are successful.

Being paid damages sets an almighty precedent for an acquittal later this year.

If we want reparation from the Premier League for impacting sponsorship deals, goodness knows what the millions would run in to for reputational damage as a result of the 115 charges?

They have come after the source of our money while leaving themselves open to their own vault.
Click to expand...
If you go after the king… you had best not miss
 
KS55 said:
I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
Click to expand...
If, like UEFA, the PL turn up with no evidence after four years I think they will face accusations of acting in bad faith. Some of the public comments made by other Club Directors have shown bad faith let alone the content of any emails. That said I think City will probably have to hold back a bit because damage to the PL brand is also a risk to our own business. What a farce this whole saga has been. I agree it will be hard to win damages unless we have strong evidence of sponsorships lost etc.
 
KS55 said:
I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
Click to expand...
Well you could certainly argue that the announcement to martin zeigler prior to city knowing and also the hastily put out press release which incorrectly states the charges was in bad faith.
 
KS55 said:
I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
Click to expand...

Surely not if we can prove they weren’t doing their job, in fact they were in cahoots with competitors.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Which is why City are also demanding a pound of flesh if we are successful.

Being paid damages sets an almighty precedent for an acquittal later this year.

If we want reparation from the Premier League for impacting sponsorship deals, goodness knows what the millions would run in to for reputational damage as a result of the 115 charges?

They have come after the source of our money while leaving themselves open to their own vault.
Click to expand...
If we have been knocked back by the PL on new sponsorships and let's take the Etihad deal was running at around 66m per year, then what's a new deal worth for the PL champions and world club champions, unprecedented, so surely the only people who could give True market value are the sponsor themselves.
 
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