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

johnny crossan said:
Just read this most interesting and succinct post referencing the currently blocked Etihad deal on another forum:

"Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to the now cancelled 5 year rag one with Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it."


onemileatatime.com

Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A: Etihad's Gorgeous New Home

Here's a look at Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A, which is the airport's impressive new terminal, and home to Etihad Airways.
onemileatatime.com onemileatatime.com
Click to expand...
Did the dodgy Team Viewer sponsorship replace the Chevrolet one that got someone from Chevrolet fired?
 
"A spanking new airport".....

It is a mangnificent edifice of architectural beauty supported by passenger /freight transit technology decades ahead of anything available in the west.

Etihad Airways ( railways & shipping) have a growth strategy of 100% in the next decade and the Zayed Airport is the foundation stone for that growth.
 
slbsn said:
This is from the Times piece. "The tribunal in that case is sitting at the end of January to make a final ruling on whether the APT rules, which insist commercial deals with companies associated with a club should be of fair market value, should be regarded — as City have claimed after a partial victory in October — as void."

But that also suggests a further wait for the determination of such a hearing. So unclear. My guess would be the decision will be delivered to parties at the end of January and the questions have been put in written submissions
Click to expand...

If anyone wants to read it.


Looks like the PL could be heading into trouble again .....
 
halfcenturyup said:
If anyone wants to read it.


Looks like the PL could be heading into trouble again .....
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. As Scruffy Jim says, it's an absurd proposal and you wonder what it's trying to achieve (similar to FFP and PSR being based on net profit).

Why not just adopt UEFA's player cost ratio system? It's not perfect by as by means but it's better than some random, ill-thought out measure like (w)anchoring.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Thanks for that. As Scruffy Jim says, it's an absurd proposal and you wonder what it's trying to achieve (similar to FFP and PSR being based on net profit).

Why not just adopt UEFA's player cost ratio system? It's not perfect by as by means but it's better than some random, ill-thought out measure like (w)anchoring.
Click to expand...
it almost feels dirty to agree with catweazle but he is right the current system whatever name it goes by today whether its psr or ffp has nothing to do with sustainability or fairness
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Thanks for that. As Scruffy Jim says, it's an absurd proposal and you wonder what it's trying to achieve (similar to FFP and PSR being based on net profit).

Why not just adopt UEFA's player cost ratio system? It's not perfect by as by means but it's better than some random, ill-thought out measure like (w)anchoring.
Click to expand...

I suppose the question is why Masters isn't steering the good ship PL around all the various obstacles, rather than heading full speed towards any iceberg he can find.

I can't get my head around what he is trying to achieve.
 
Radcliffe: "What would anchoring do? It would inhibit the top clubs in the Premiership and the last thing you want is for them not to be able to compete with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, PSG. That’s absurd."

Reality: "What would anchoring do? It would inhibit the average clubs in the Premiership and the last thing you want is for them not to be able to compete with Bodi/Glimt, POAK, FCSB, Rangers. That’s absurd."
 
halfcenturyup said:
If anyone wants to read it.


Looks like the PL could be heading into trouble again .....
Click to expand...
The article mentions the PFA approaching us and the rags and the possibility of a club taking the PL to court.
I hope City let someone else be the patsy.
Step forward Chemical Jim and your no win no fee solicitors.
No doubt they will be heralded and saving, not destroying, the PL.
 
Blue Mist said:
The article mentions the PFA approaching us and the rags and the possibility of a club taking the PL to court.
I hope City let someone else be the patsy.
Step forward Chemical Jim and your no win no fee solicitors.
No doubt they will be heralded and saving, not destroying, the PL.
Click to expand...

Almost guaranteed to be City, I imagine.
 
Paladin said:
Radcliffe: "What would anchoring do? It would inhibit the top clubs in the Premiership and the last thing you want is for them not to be able to compete with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, PSG. That’s absurd."

Reality: "What would anchoring do? It would inhibit the average clubs in the Premiership and the last thing you want is for them not to be able to compete with Bodi/Glimt, POAK, FCSB, Rangers. That’s absurd."
Click to expand...
Premier League surely….
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
That's the whole point.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. And City fans have banged on about ffp/psr for over a decade as being misnomered, clearly targeted (at us and anyone like us), and as a means of ensuring the cartel clubs can stay at the top by stopping any other club from rising up.

It’s only in the last 4 years,( exacerbated by the Covid season) that one cartel club in particular has begun to really take the unintended unexpected hits from their own PL gerrymandering.

There is a massive feeling of schadenfreude around that, to me.

On the one hand I want an evenhanded set of financial rules, that is truely fair play, sustainable and forwarded thinking (not historically biased)… but on the other I’m thinking that the current farago of psr rules should limp along till a relegation and 3+ years of championship football for united has occurred.

Bit hypocritical, but karma would be served, albeit just to one of the cartel.
 
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