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

CC1 said:
Gets more complicated every time I look at this thread
Click to expand...
To summarize:

1) Cunts tried to stack the deck using language they thought would fuck off naysayers.

2) City weren’t having it and said, “Bollocks!”

3) Judges thought it was mostly bollocks.

4) Cunts have shit a brick.

5) Cunts have got to decide what to do to fix their cock up without it looking too twatty.

SKY might feed you a different version, but that’ll be bollocks, too!
 
BringBackSwales said:
Good point, let’s go and get Duran in the January window. He may as well be Haaland’s back up as Watkins, and imagine what Pep could do with him
Click to expand...

Better still, we do a deal with 6 other clubs, including Villa, to vote with us for twelve months until all this shit is over, Masters is history and his replacement process is regulated by the IR and, in return, we let them have first refusal on our academy talent at "favourable" prices. Time to turn the tables on the failing cartel clubs.
 
CC1 said:
It sounds impossible for PL to get it sorted because the clubs that receive the interest free loans are not going to vote to include them in APT rules - and if the PL don’t get this agreed they’re back to using rules that the tribunal deemed unlawful!

Stalemate.

Surely the only resolution is to discard APT rules which will save clubs like Arsenal from failing PSR but will enable us to proceed with better sponsorship deals? Also - as far as the PL are concerned - this runs the risk of a compensation claim from City

An amateur view of course & far more complex in reality
Click to expand...
The problem with forever changing complex rules is that they’re easily challenged as we have seen.

The PL have gone so far down the wrong road they can’t turn around but it’s a dead end. Whatever they do now someone will challenge it. Masters is finished for a start and that’s just the beginning.

Rule makers have to be independent and not put the rules up to be voted on by clubs with vested interests.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Yep. Was ready to give an upbeat review of what the PL was going to do, ready for all the frothers to use in their positive broadcasts of the PL.

Now, shat his pants as his legal team tell him the realities of his/the PLs position.
Click to expand...
Also unlikely to be him that gives the PL version of why their sponsorship costs so much.
 
Anyone care to mention the Chav's and the 1.6b soft loan they just wrote off in 2022, they had a PIK benefit that would have seen them make significant losses over the tenure of Abramovich' ownership. Added to the hotel "scam" they are the biggest piss takers in the history of the PL.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
To me, there's a number of elements in assessing fair value:
  1. What is the sponsor paying?
  2. What are they proposing to get for that?
  3. Is what they're paying commensurate with what they're getting?
  4. Is it a genuine transaction?
That's pretty well the tests used by CAS.

If the sponsor pays £50m and they just get a quarter page in the programme, that would fail test 3, and probably 4 as well. If the sponsor is paying £5m and getting their name on the front of the club's shirt, that would fail test 3 if it was City or Liverpool. Ashley's arrangement at Newcastle would probably fail test 3, as he was getting far more exposure for Sports Direct than he was paying for.

On the other hand £5m to sponsor, say, Hull City wouldn't be out of place. You have to consider the exposure the sponsorship gives. City are 7 times PL champions, having won the last 4 titles in a row, a treble in the last few seasons and are one of the hottest properties in football. That's why we'd always attract a premium.

And, as @gordondaviesmoustache said earlier, you also have to consider what the sponsor gets out of it, beyond their name on the shirt. In other words, what's their return on investment? Warrior, when they blew Adidas out of the water for Liverpool's kit deal in 2012, got a high-profile entry into the football kit market. That had to be worth more to them than to the already globally-established Adidas. Ultimately they failed on distribution, so Liverpool went to Nike. But if Warrior got other high-profile deals out of the Liverpool one then it would have been well worth the premium they paid in 2012.

The point is that you can't just look at a database and say "Well united only got £50m for a shirt naming deal from a mobile phone chip manufacturer so that's the benchmark".
Click to expand...
Our enemies knew our owners were far better businessmen than they were and tried to prevent our BP maturity.
The results speak for themselves and demonstrate why we are so good at football and choosing our sponsors.
 
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