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

[cheekybids]

Iirc, the panel said 52 sponsorship deals had been reviewed under the APT rules, with 41 of them cleared (presumably favourably) within the appropriate time. So that leaves up to 11 that were amended, I guess.

I still find it amazing that the PL can insist a valid contract between two parties has to be changed because .... well, just because they say so. I can understand why the PL would want that but there must surely be huge problems around that with the impact on directors' legal responsibility to shareholders, not to mention jurisdiction (how can the PL force a company not subject to the PL rules to do anything? Especially in a foreign country. They can't even force them to provide information to an investigation).

I said earlier, in some way I hope Etihad reduced their sponsorship by say 10 million a year and then refuse to increase it again and the club sues the PL for that amount for each of the next ten years. 100 million would be nice.

It’s fucking crazy beyond belief that you limit the growth of the most successful club in your league over the last decade. We question Masters ability as a CEO but the blokes background is Sales & Marketing, it’s insane he would say there is a limit that this record breaking club can achieve. How do you negotiate a better TV deal when you effectively saying a club doesn’t deserve a higher value after becoming the most watched team in the world. Hes dismissing brand recognition & the strength of his league.

 

[Bluekiwi]

Here it is

https://archive.md/Qp8lE

I've just read the letter and to my mind the PL should be running for cover as they are obviously incompetent. When the 115/130 charges are deemed to be inaccurate (or whatever word that should be) then City's lawyers can take the PL, media and the cartel to the cleaners suing them for damages etc., etc.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It’s fucking crazy beyond belief that you limit the growth of the most successful club in your league over the last decade. We question Masters ability as a CEO but the blokes background is Sales & Marketing, it’s insane he would say there is a limit that this record breaking club can achieve. How do you negotiate a better TV deal when you effectively saying a club doesn’t deserve a higher value after becoming the most watched team in the world. Hes dismissing brand recognition & the strength of his league.

I think the reality is he's had 3 or 4 other clubs telling him what to do and threatening to flounce off to a super league if he didn't comply. Then, the threat of oversight from an independent regulator.

 

[cheekybids]

You may be right.

But the aggressive response from Cliff (or from the legal team through Cliff) is so unlike City it makes me think there is more to it all. Maybe a strategy of get one unlawful judgment, have all the APT rules voided, get the outstanding cases cleared and then get new, more acceptable, APT rules. The PL knows all this and started working with the club on it, but have tried to bluff their way out of it under pressure from the reds, and City are keeping them on the tribunal hook.

May all be bullshit, but came to me last night and ties up one or two loose ends. In my mind and, at least :D

I do think that City have considered all responses & outcomes to ensure it plays out how they want, losing battles but winning the war. Like a grandmaster they’ll be many moves ahead.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think the reality is he's had 3 or 4 other clubs telling him what to do and threatening to flounce off to a super league if he didn't comply. Then, the threat of oversight from an independent regulator.

Not sure the super league threat works any more, but a blackmail threat supported by plenty of emails, documents and minutes of meetings that show who he is actually working for, would work.

I like a good conspiracy theory, me ..... :)

 

[cheekybids]

I think the reality is he's had 3 or 4 other clubs telling him what to do and threatening to flounce off to a super league if he didn't comply. Then, the threat of oversight from an independent regulator.

But the benefit of a super league was not team dominance but increased revenue. The Rags have been lagging in a league made up of also rans in the premier league, they are writing off the opportunity to win trophy’s for the removal of relegation & yo compete with Madrid, Barca, Bayern etc

He should be saying when a club gets more it makes the negotiations for the next club negotiating to piggy back.

 

[SWP's back]

No - not approved. The rejection is set aside but City still need to show FMV unless they are correct that all APT rules now fall away pending replacement.

No, the PL need show it’s not FMV. The onus is now on them.

 

[halfcenturyup]

No, the PL need show it’s not FMV. The onus is now on them.

Evidently not FMV, assuming all the APT rules aren't null and void.

 

[cheekybids]

Evidently not FMV, assuming all the APT rules aren't null and void.

Not enough has been made of that. What was the response for removing evidently?

 

[sir baconface]

You try your luck with 100 women and get 99 knock backs. You get one say yes and you take her home. Your night was a success.

Not if she turns out to be a serial killer :)

Still a partial success….

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not enough has been made of that. What was the response for removing evidently?

That was the one, iirc, where the PL's KC said that removing the word evidently would increase the risk of a legal challenge, but they did it anyway. The idiots.

Here, I think;

 

[lancs blue]

According to Ziegler the panel will be issuing further findings on the case to clarify the status of the APT rules.

Panel’s full findings on Man City may cause earthquake for Premier League

The ruling in the tribunal that caused such an impact on Tuesday may be only the first tremor: revealing the full explanation may have a devastating effect on the future of the top flight

www.thetimes.com

 

[slbsn]

No, the PL need show it’s not FMV. The onus is now on them.

Sloppy language from me but the burden has always been on the PL on these on the “evidently not FMV” test and that doesn’t change. These were both being processed under the 2021 rules not the 2024 rules so the difference is only in respect of the access to information not the burden of proof changes.

 

[slbsn]

The rules of the fmv assessment are going to have to be changed for the "pricing" issues found unlawful by the tribunal. So the burden of proof will now be on the PL and with a clearly apparent ("evident") margin of error. Pretty sure those change the whole ball game.

Important to note the City APTs in the decision were only being reviewed under the old rules not 2024 rules

 

[Rammy Blue]

 

[cheekybids]

That was the one, iirc, where the PL's KC said that removing the word evidently would increase the risk of a legal challenge, but they did it anyway. The idiots.

Here, I think;

View attachment 134418

View attachment 134419

I know Nielsen do the benchmarking but what is their main commercial purpose of business? Are they contracted purely to measure the value of services or provide advice on how the client can negotiate more?

In my experience valuers of services work for the buyer & seller. 1 will concentrate on negatives & the other will focus on positives. Is it true they are employed by the Dippers?

Edit: just googled & it says this

“Our approach to comprehensive sponsorship media valuation leverages data and insights to maximize opportunity and provide greater ROI to rights holders and brands”

Yet they’ve essentially devalued the contracts. That’s why it would be vital to have the data behind the decision.

 

[waspish]

This from the Lawyer.
'... In other words, shareholder loans should be subject to the same rules as other APTs. Ironically, as the Premier League points out, City actually voted in favour of excluding shareholder loans in 2021'
Why did City vote in favour of excluding loans and then chang their mind and why would Arsenal vote to include them?
I don't get it.

Maybe city think for then go of clubs and those shareholder loans are good for the games football clubs who have rich owners like sponsors are good for the game so clubs can good players to make the league stronger! The cartel are looking at it as it's not fair city can get these sponsors

 

[halfcenturyup]

According to Ziegler the panel will be issuing further findings on the case to clarify the status of the APT rules.

Panel’s full findings on Man City may cause earthquake for Premier League

The ruling in the tribunal that caused such an impact on Tuesday may be only the first tremor: revealing the full explanation may have a devastating effect on the future of the top flight

www.thetimes.com

Interesting. More going on than we knew about. Who'd a thunk it?

Archive version: https://archive.ph/vL9FV

 

[Damocles]

This is from The Lawyer. It's a legal publication. You'd be hard pressed to claim bias or misunderstanding from these. They pretty much echo what Stefan has been saying since the start.

https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know Nielsen do the benchmarking but what is their main commercial purpose of business? Are they contracted purely to measure the value of services or provide advice on how the client can negotiate more?

In my experience valuers of services work for the buyer & seller. 1 will concentrate on negatives & the other will focus on positives. Is it true they are employed by the Dippers?

Edit: just googled & it says this

“Our approach to comprehensive sponsorship media valuation leverages data and insights to maximize opportunity and provide greater ROI to rights holders and brands”

Yet they’ve essentially devalued the contracts. That’s why it would be vital to have the data behind the decision.

Apparently they deliver end-to-end custom consulting solutions that are meant to compete.

Which means they are full of shit :)