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

bluenova said:
Sure - but in any other business, the owners could decide to asset strip and close it down. We only have to look across Manchester to see that a "normal" practice of loading a business with debt when you're buying it, isn't good for football.

I agree that the clubs that happened to be big in the 90s/00s have stitched things up, but football shouldn't be like any other business.
Click to expand...
So, the football authorities prevent the investors from investing so that the asset strippers can get on asset stripping. I get it now.
 
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...
I do wonder if Masters has any kids. The fucker seems to be an expert at "pulling out"...
 
Dribble said:
Business is Business mate. How an owner chooses to approach it is purely subjective.

The Glazer's loaded ManUre with leveraged debt. Sheikh Mansour used his own money. Both have spent huge sums, but the Glazer's used the profit & sponsorship money to further invest in the playing side of the club, whilst taking a slice for themselves. Our owner did the same, but has opted to reinvest the slice he's entitled to, to further grow his business. That's the difference.

By doing this, SM has exponentially increased the value of his initial investment from £100m to nearly £6bn, whilst ManUre are £1bn+ in debt.

Rather than compete with this, the cartel have opted to stop City by any means necessary, & if this means trashing the PL in the process, it's evidently a price they're willing to pay.
Click to expand...
Our model is better for football, and for Manchester, as well as good for the Sheikh, but let’s not pretend the Glasers haven’t made a mint for themselves.

The irony is the one that benefits football is the one in the PL dock.
 
Gordyola said:
The way I see it, an organisation can introduce a rule and until it is proven illegal then it's ok. If the rule is challenged in court and they determine its in contravention with English law then that rule is deemed illegal and regardless of any vote it remains so.
Click to expand...
The regulations (they are not laws) were found unlawful by tribunal, not by a court of law. This may mean that any attempt to enforce the regulations would entitle City (or any other club) to appeal to the High Court and, in view of the eminent persons having already given their award the PL could get a real hiding.
 
malg said:
Thought it was all on here, but probably 200 pages back now. From memory.....(I'm old and could be wrong):

Rags, Dippers, Arse, Wolves, Brentford, Bournemouth, West Ham and Fulham
Click to expand...

You may be right, but as far as I can see, five clubs provided witness statements for the PL and one appeared as a witness, making six: Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Spurs, West Ham and Brighton;

And three appeared as witnesses for City: Newcastle, Chelsea and Everton.

That makes six to four. Just need three of the remaining ten to get a blocking vote. I am guessing Villa, Forest and Leicester would be open. And we can probably get more if Soriano leverages the club's advantages with the "smaller" clubs successfully. He can earn his money on this.
 
Damanino said:
bit worried about the friends we have, 8 clubs worked with PL against us, red cartel the main enemies but the other 5 dont like us either.
then Che, New, Eve supported us, so that leaves 8 teams who might on the fence to decide which way to lean.

Spurs surprise not in the 8 in this APT case trying to throw us under the bus, but you can bet Levy happy with any negative outcome on City so I would say 9 against us, 3 with us and maybe Forest so its 9 vs 5 with 6 clubs still to decide 3 of them promoted ones, and other three some of these 6 might abstain again on any big decision like happened in past. meaning even 11-12 votes could be enough.

we deffo not have numbers to push through some rules we want to happen and its a tight thing to even stop some rules being voted we dont want.

we are really hated and many have been brainwashed about City, Newcastle and Arab owners in general. lot of owners in lesser clubs dont wanna here a promoted team having rich owners ready to invest and stay in PL for 5-10 years rather than be a club that relegates soon after promotion. Newcastle pose danger for both set of teams, they are overtaking teams fighting for 7-8-9-10. with potential to overtake 3-4-5-6th as well instead of the mainly 13-18. places they did in Ashley era.
and they rather stop us then not cement in current status quo, and happy to play second fiddle to red cartel for cosy 7th-15th places year in year out. we re asking team to have dreams and bit of risk when they dont have any ambition, dreams just pure self interest and the safe option currently available.

Newcastle currently great example of the rules in work, they would need further serious investment in the squad to really take on CL teams and continued investment for years to challenge for title every season alongside great decisions made on staff, transfer etc. but they hit a limit, certainly could not properly spent to do this, they may add Guehi which would blow most of their available limit, but in the meantime their rivals can add much more quality money spent. nothing fair about this.
Click to expand...
We won’t be in a position to push through rules of our choosing but we are in an excellent place to ensure that anything passed will be compliant. Every club now knows what has been deemed unlawful and it can’t possibly be in their interest to ram through a new set of unlawful regs. The cartel poodle clubs simply have to put a bit more thought into it this time, whether they like it or not.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Just speculation I suppose, but this from the BBC, for example:

"However, City's lawyers believe that it would be unfair to continue to subject previous sponsorship deals to APT rules that have now been found to be partly unlawful, while choosing not to subject previous shareholder loans to the same regulations. They may even seek an injunction to prevent the Premier League from trying to doing so."
Click to expand...
What do the BBC mean by "partly unlawful." Nothing can be "partly unlawful."
 
Gaz (FMwkdsoul) said:
I thought the 'evidently' came in the valuation ruling on the Ethiad deal not the rule itself.
Click to expand...
The word "evidently" is one of the buffers referred to in 288.
From para. 286:
This point was also recognised in the advice of Helen Davies KC: “The standard of ‘evidently in excess of FMV’ should ensure that it is only obviously abusive transactions that are prevented and thus that there is no unintended collateral adverse effect on competition.”
Then in 288
However, having regard to the evidence of <redacted>
and <redacted>, we consider that the Amended APT Rules remove an important part of the previous buffer which was intended to reduce the risk of false positives.
The removal of this buffer is liable to increase the risk of a distortion of competition and to do so materially. In our view, it is important that the method chosen for
determining the FMV of an APT is sufficiently robust to, if not eliminate, at least reduce the risk of false positives. We are not persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Herbert
that these changes are either necessary or proportionate to the ensuring of the effectiveness of the PSR. His evidence does not grapple with the possible bespoke nature of sponsorship agreements.
289. Accordingly, we conclude that these changes are a restriction of competition by object.
 
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