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

johnny crossan said:
It would be really helpful if we would clarify if there is now any significant difference between your take on what the pivotal issues are and that of the Stefan (and indeed those of GDM, Petruska, HCU & the other legal professionals) helping us all understand what is going on here. Realise it's a big ask though.
Click to expand...
I think me and @Chris in London are pretty much on the same page…it just took him a bit longer to declare himself…
 
johnny crossan said:
It would be really helpful if we would clarify if there is now any significant difference between your take on what the pivotal issues are and that of the Stefan (and indeed those of GDM, Petruska, HCU & the other legal professionals) helping us all understand what is going on here. Realise it's a big ask though.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with Stefan at all nor with Petruska. We have been discussing some of the minor aspects of the more minor points. A bit like debating Micah Richard’s non penalty in the context of the 6-1.

I can’t actually remember if I agree with HCU or not!
 
Chris in London said:
Yes precisely. It is self reporting in the sense that any company that enters into any RPT will self report , but as you say it’s not a concept that is specific to football.

And in almost every other field of human endeavour it appears to work.
Click to expand...
The other argument that would have answered the self reporting point, is that the APT rules go far beyond fixing the self reporting issue.

So, if there were legitimate concerns about under reporting of RPTs due to self reporting (the PLs primary case), then the answer is for the transactions to be declared to the league and for the league to consider if they believed (with evidence and professional confirmation) the parties to be RPTs. On the PLs own line of argument, that would have been the proportionate scheme to fix the deficiency without going beyond what was necessary.

But they did go quite considerably beyond that potential fix to self reporting by coming up with a much wider test capturing far more entities, the APT definition and the whole "before the event" APT regime.
 
Chris in London said:
I don’t disagree with Stefan at all nor with Petruska. We have been discussing some of the minor aspects of the more minor points. A bit like debating Micah Richard’s non penalty in the context of the 6-1.

I can’t actually remember if I agree with HCU or not!
Click to expand...
I think it is about emphasis - we all agree what was decided but aren't completely aligned on how significant it is. Likewise on those points where the PL prevailed. We could do a Q&A Spaces on Friday if I can summon the energy on the topic again.
 
Chris in London said:
I don’t disagree with Stefan at all nor with Petruska. We have been discussing some of the minor aspects of the more minor points. A bit like debating Micah Richard’s non penalty in the context of the 6-1.

I can’t actually remember if I agree with HCU or not!
Click to expand...
Great news! The bluemoon bewigged division marches forward to confront the enemy

Aggressive_watermark-300x300.jpg
 
slbsn said:
The other argument that would have answered the self reporting point, is that the APT rules go far beyond fixing the self reporting issue.

So, if there were legitimate concerns about under reporting of RPTs due to self reporting (the PLs primary case), then the answer is for the transactions to be declared to the league and for the league to consider if they believed (with evidence and professional confirmation) the parties to be RPTs. On the PLs own line of argument, that would have been the proportionate scheme to fix the deficiency without going beyond what was necessary.

But they did go quite considerably beyond that potential fix to self reporting by coming up with a much wider test capturing far more entities, the APT definition and the whole "before the event" APT regime.
Click to expand...
It seems clear that what they mean by under reporting of RPT's is that none of City's sponsors have been declared as RPT's
 
citizen_maine said:
It seems clear that what they mean by under reporting of RPT's is that none of City's sponsors have been declared as RPT's
Click to expand...
That is what they mean. My point is the fix for that could easily have simply been giving the PL power to declare a party to be a related party even if the accounts did not. As I mentioned, this is precisely what UEFA did in 2014.

Instead, the PL went far further.
 
When the meeting finally takes place with Masters, the PL, and the 20 PL clubs, and when it’s City’s turn to talk, I hope City play this video first.



It is, and will always be most famous moment in PL history. And the moment it took the PL to another level around the world.(financially) Nothing any of the Red Shirt Cartel clubs have done, including United, will ever better that moment of PL history.

Fuck you, Masters!
 
Last edited:
jrb said:
When the meeting finally takes place with Masters, the PL, and the 20 PL clubs, and when it’s City’s turn to talk, I hope City play this video first.



It is, and will always be most famous moment in the PL history. And the moment it took the PL to another level around the world.(financially) Nothing any of the Red Shirt Cartel clubs have done, including United, will ever better that moment of PL history.

Fuck you, Masters!
Click to expand...

Excellent
 
jrb said:
When the meeting finally takes place with Masters, the PL, and the 20 PL clubs, and when it’s City’s turn to talk, I hope City play this video first.



It is, and will always be most famous moment in the PL history. And the moment it took the PL to another level around the world.(financially) Nothing any of the Red Shirt Cartel clubs have done, including United, will ever better that moment of PL history.

Fuck you, Masters!
Click to expand...

This alone makes the Etihad deal fair value, or very much undervalued. What Stadium did this happen in?

How many billions of views will this have had or get in the future? The brand exposure is invaluable.
 
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