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

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...
Couldn’t get his gimp mask off in time, and he was rather sore from his “fun” with the red top bigwigs…
 
TedofChume said:
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?
Click to expand...
Where Der Spiegel fucked themselves was by splicing together two emails that were sent 2 years apart, in an attempt to highlight the context they were trying to make.

HOWEVER, as you know with courts, you get caught telling porkies or tampering with evidence once, & all evidence offered is immediately tarnished too.
 
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...
In fairness, Etihad had (according to those close to the 2014 UEFA appraisal) always been appraised to be fair market value before this latest round whenever tested
 
meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes that's FFP, UEFA use a different system for measuring FMV to the Premier League.

City are being charged under rule E54, which is all about assessing FMV of sponsorship deals.

I understood Nielson are involved in assessing the value of City's Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship deals in the current PSR case, and that they use a different methodology.
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, Etihad had (according to those close to the 2014 UEFA appraisal) always been appraised to be fair market value before this latest round whenever tested
Click to expand...
Objectively and empirically speaking, yes, but plenty of thick cunts don’t see it that way.
 
Dribble said:
Where Der Spiegel fucked themselves was by splicing together two emails that were sent 2 years apart, in an attempt to highlight the context they were trying to make.

HOWEVER, as you know with courts, you get caught telling porkies or tampering with evidence once, & all evidence offered is immediately tarnished too.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but if they had any evidence it would be in this article backing the Premier League PSR case.
 
TedofChume said:
I totally agree, this is Dan Roan's article on the letter City's Simon Cliff has sent out to the a Premier League and other clubs. It's nice to know confidentiality isn't important to Roan.

www.bbc.co.uk

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

As usual Roan tries to hide the truth, but Cliff is spot on:

" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.

"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies,

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void,

"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls.

I'm inclined to agree with Cliff, and I'm baffled that the Premier League appear to be in denial of what has actually happened.
Click to expand...
"The Premier League has said that it is confident that it can amend the APT rules in order to make them comply with competition law."

NB - there are currently no APT rules to amend. They are void (say City, and I agree with them!)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I was more two footed, but yes, that’s not wide of the mark. I had a decent first touch, but I was disgracefully lazy. Decent at fives, but no good at 11 a side really.

I was ok.
Click to expand...
Well done, myself, a goal machine at 5 a side, scored a fair few at 11 a side but ended setting up more goals than I scored, mainly due to taking corners and free kicks. Seriously really miss playing football.


Back on topic.
I hope this decision leads to MardArsenal and few others getting their comeuppance
 
TedofChume said:
Yes that's FFP, UEFA use a different system for measuring FMV to the Premier League.

City are being charged under rule E54, which is all about assessing FMV of sponsorship deals.

I understood Nielson are involved in assessing the value of City's Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship deals in the current PSR case, and that they use a different methodology.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with FFP. The years we’re charged with breaching PSR, there was no reason for them to be checked for fair market value as they weren’t considered related parties. The PL have charged us for that because they’re saying they should have been considered as them.

Neilson are involved in assessing APTs.
 
TedofChume said:
Absolutely, but if they had any evidence it would be in this article backing the Premier League PSR case.
Click to expand...
They had the "evidence". CAS heard it & threw the lot out, but yet here we are with the PL on rinse & repeat.

The PL came after us with essentially the same bollocks only because their statute of limitations was longer than UEFA's, so many of the time-barred allegations are included. If the case has been lost on the same grounds once, what makes the PL believe they'll succeed where UEFA failed?

I've long stated that the PL at best hoped to succeed where UEFA failed, but at worst they'd cause irreparable reputational damage to Manchester City Football Club. This is their only logical end game, as nothing else in this whole farce makes a blind bit of sense.
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, Etihad had (according to those close to the 2014 UEFA appraisal) always been appraised to be fair market value before this latest round whenever tested
Click to expand...
Currently watching you on a talksport podcast, that was on my YouTube feed. The other guy seems a bit of a clown, going on about oil money, and incorrectly the amount we spend.

Not finished it yet but you're coming across very well in this so far
 
As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?
 
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...
Hard to believe Masters has led the league into this much of a mess. An absolutely core responsibility of his role is maintain harmony between the member clubs.

Every little bit of this current catastrophic nonsense is entirely avoidable. The ATP rules could simply have been written with quality thus legality the absolute priority over timeframe, whilst the 115 charges could easily have been dropped after UEFA's case failed.

The man needs to go, he's a little weakling who has neither the political nor mental capacity to stand up to the red cartel. Otherwise, this is all heading to absolute disaster for everyone.
 
TedofChume said:
Yes that's FFP, UEFA use a different system for measuring FMV to the Premier League.

City are being charged under rule E54, which is all about assessing FMV of sponsorship deals.

I understood Nielson are involved in assessing the value of City's Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship deals in the current PSR case, and that they use a different methodology.
Click to expand...
The first question to Nielson in court should be "To what extent does your business model depend on giving your client the result it wants?"
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?
Click to expand...
Exactly! This explains why a Rag I had the misfortune to get into a discussion with, agreed that City are below Everton, Villa & WHU in terms of sponsorship prestige because "They're all proper clubs with storied histories & City haven't got a history, so who would want to sponsor them?". I shit you not!
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?
Click to expand...
As a Newcastle fan, I questioned this. Say I was a millionaire, or even a billionaire and I wanted to sponsor Newcastle Inited for £50m, and the Premier League said no, but I asked to sponsor Liverpool for that amount and they said yes, surely I have the ability to take action against the Premier League.

To me, giving Newcastle £50m would be worth it. It could buy us a player to compete, or it could be the difference between winning something, and not winning it.
Giving Liverpool that money would mean the opposite, Liverpool likely get that player ahead of Newcastle, and likely go on to win something with that money.

Naturally you all as Man City fans would feel the same about sponsoring Man City.

So who is it for the Premier League to say how I can and can’t spend my money, and how 2 teams who have an equal share in the Premier League are having 2 different limits of funding sources placed on them?

Surely in competition law, there is laws preventing that, as well as the Premier Leagues ‘Everyone is equal, and has equal opportunities’ rules.
 
Leech said:
Hard to believe Masters has led the league into this much of a mess. An absolutely core responsibility of his role is maintain harmony between the member clubs.

Every little bit of this current catastrophic nonsense is entirely avoidable. The ATP rules could simply have been written with quality thus legality the absolute priority over timeframe, whilst the 115 charges could easily have been dropped after UEFA's case failed.

The man needs to go, he's a little weakling who has neither the political nor mental capacity to stand up to the red cartel. Otherwise, this is all heading to absolute disaster for everyone.
Click to expand...
A cynic might say this is why others turned the job down (a great job at that) and why he was appointed.
 
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