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

Screenshot_20241009_205328_Chrome.jpgScreenshot_20241009_205342_Chrome.jpg

"Masters’ no-show, at a high level shindig with all-important broadcasters who pay billions into the competition’s coffers, will have been a big call. Sky are the main players in a £6.7bn deal along with TNT and the BBC, while NBC will show matches in the vital US market until 2028, which will mark a 15-year partnership. A party of top NBC bosses are in the UK for a week of planning meetings.

Masters will no doubt have spent the time preparing for the crunch, hastily-arranged summit which will take place next Thursday - and could bring face-to-face City’s legal counsel, Simon Cliff, with those who he lambasted in a blistering email on Monday night."

Oh dear... Oh deary deary me... :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ers-broadcast-meeting-civil-war-Man-City.html
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
Ididnt think they hung on over inflated but that the owner was paying his own money through them in the back door (disguised equity) ? the FMV wasnt questioned?

i could have that wrong though, so many overlapping issues in the 3-4 cases so far. @Prestwich_Blue help
Click to expand...
To be honest I get confused at times as well.

I'm pretty certain it's a bit of both. The allegation is:

"In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs."

The der Spiegel stuff on this allegation is all about sponsorship being inflated because they allege SM was paying for it.
 
Nightmare Walking said:
Ricky Holden was the only thing in the universe that turned slower than lead.

I seen quite a bit of him at Oldham. He had a lovely left foot. He was perfect for Joe Royle and that Latics team.
Click to expand...
He was so slow that if we conceded to a fast counter attack the restart had to be delayed until Ricky was back in his own half.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
If anyone managed to catch it, the Chief Executive of Etihad was on Iain King in Sky News business hour between 4.30-5pm today?

He was asked a few questions about their involvement with City and the recent case.

King at one stage asked if Etihad would ever sponsored a different club in the Premier League, which was easily batted away.

Apologies, don't know where you would get it to post on here.
Click to expand...
I also saw it, I think it was actually Paul Kelso rather than Ian King though, anyway they pressed the CE to try and get something on City but you’re right he batted things away brilliantly. He even said, when slyly pressed, that the Etihad deal with City was on fair market terms, something I’m sure Sky Sports will report, but don’t hold your breath
 
TedofChume said:
To be honest I get confused at times as well.

I'm pretty certain it's a bit of both. The allegation is:

"In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs."

The der Spiegel stuff on this allegation is all about sponsorship being inflated because they allege SM was paying for it.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that City needed an advance on the sponsorship monies, to help comply with FFP, so it was mooted if HRH would be willing to put the cash in upfront from his own pocket & be directly remunerated by the sponsors when the installments were due.

This was the "out of context" element of our explanation regarding UEFA's 2013 allegations.
 
Robbo said:
I also saw it, I think it was actually Paul Kelso rather than Ian King though, anyway they pressed the CE to try and get something on City but you’re right he batted things away brilliantly. He even said, when slyly pressed, that the Etihad deal with City was on fair market terms, something I’m sure Sky Sports will report, but don’t hold your breath
Click to expand...
This is a decent summary of the interview...

https://news.sky.com/story/etihad-a...odds-for-manchester-city-sponsorship-13231021
 
Robbo said:
Cheers mate, I take it all back maybe even Sky are beginning to see the light
Click to expand...
All Etihad had to do is point to their exponential growth since 2009, which they credit mostly to their association with Manchester City.

This alone is game, set & match to MCFC. You can't argue with facts & figures... Unless you're the Premier League!
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
All Etihad had to do is point to their exponential growth since 2009, which they credit mostly to their association with Manchester City.

This alone is game, set & match to MCFC. You can't argue with factual figures...
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely nuts anyone questioning the FMV of the deal, at any point in the last 14 years, given what Etihad have had out of the arrangement throughout that period.

It’s been an incredible arrangement for that airline.
 
Dribble said:
View attachment 134484View attachment 134485

"Masters’ no-show, at a high level shindig with all-important broadcasters who pay billions into the competition’s coffers, will have been a big call. Sky are the main players in a £6.7bn deal along with TNT and the BBC, while NBC will show matches in the vital US market until 2028, which will mark a 15-year partnership. A party of top NBC bosses are in the UK for a week of planning meetings.

Masters will no doubt have spent the time preparing for the crunch, hastily-arranged summit which will take place next Thursday - and could bring face-to-face City’s legal counsel, Simon Cliff, with those who he lambasted in a blistering email on Monday night."

Oh dear... Oh deary deary me... :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ers-broadcast-meeting-civil-war-Man-City.html
Click to expand...

But why though if the PL won and are happy with the outcome?! ;)
 
TedofChume said:
To be honest I get confused at times as well.

I'm pretty certain it's a bit of both. The allegation is:

"In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs."

The der Spiegel stuff on this allegation is all about sponsorship being inflated because they allege SM was paying for it.
Click to expand...

Not inflated , just that he was paying it on behalf of Etihad. It got covered at CAS, there was no allegation of it being inflated.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s absolutely nuts anyone questioning the FMV of the deal, at any point in the last 14 years, given what Etihad have had out of the arrangement throughout that period.

It’s been an incredible arrangement for that airline.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine being told it was your job to trash the new Etihad deal because it was above market value... And then you looked at Etihad's balance sheet & growth since 2009? Lol

I'd have been giving serious consideration to a career change with new employers! The fuck would I try & defend this unbelievable bollocks in public & make a right arse out of myself! :-)
 
Dribble said:
My understanding is that City needed an advance on the sponsorship monies, to help comply with FFP, so it was mooted if HRH would be willing to put the cash in upfront from his own pocket & be directly remunerated by the sponsors when the installments were due.

This was the "out of context" element of our explanation regarding UEFA's 2013 allegations.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I've been looking at this from the perspective of what der Spiegel have accused us of in their follow up to the Premier League charging us on 06 Feb 23.

www.spiegel.de

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.
www.spiegel.de www.spiegel.de

My logic, isn't necessarily based on what's actually happened, but rather what they've said because this whole case started with what they printed and alleged, so it makes sense to me to look at that?
 
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