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

BerkshireBlue said:
Well considering your track record of being wrong about pretty much most it so far. I'll stand by that city will file for damages and get them. It's just a question of how much
Click to expand...
Sure. Nobody said they won’t seek damages - they said they will and they might. But it won’t be automatic (as you inferred) or for the losses you suggested. Nor is it true that the PLs assessment of the FMV caused this season’s underperformance. Actually a bonkers theory. It seems you haven’t actually read the initial decision.
 
Ballymagash Blue said:
@slbsn knows his onions. Far from being wrong most of the time, the level of foresight he demonstrates is extraordinary.

It's always a pleasure to listen to and to read someone who is so proficient in their field, and Stefan is probably the country's leading expert in football finance. I'm just glad he posts his insights here, but think I'd prefer it if he was still working for City!
Click to expand...
Cheers
 
slbsn said:
City's claim included damages - we know that.

604 then says: 'We reserve our jurisdiction to grant such relief. We do not so in this Award because we heard no submissions as to such relief and in any event we consider that the Parties should have the opportunity to consider what, if any, further relief is appropriate in the light of our conclusions."

No submissions on damages were made in the initial hearing and as it says, no submissions were even made as to the jurisdiction of this Panel - it would be pointless to make submissions before hearing the decision of the Panel and given they didn't hear submissions on jurisdiction, they clearly wouldn't have heard submissions on damages. So it is possible that the second hearing heard an application for damages but I doubt that too given what the Panel found in the Initial Decision.

Right now, given the initial decision, it is hard to see what City's loss is.
Click to expand...
I just took it to mean City sought damages but until the partial verdict (on the substance of the claim) hadn't put any quantum on the claim. The wording suggests the panel expected some offer of settlement by the PL. We might find out next week! But it seems odd that City could win their case that the rules were ("by object") designed to be unfair and get no compensation, other than the satisfaction of winning (and facing a defendant that then pretended they'd won the case).
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'd like to think so of course but I don't know. But what I do know is that initially, when the charges were announced just two years ago, I thought that these were very serious issues. After a few days, when I'd thought about them more and gone back through all the source documentation, I was much more relaxed.

In the last 3 months or so, after the APT case and re-reading the CAS verdict, my view is what I expressed and that you responded to. I think that what looked like the most serious potential issue is actually nothing.

As I've said (and Stefan doesn't agree with, which is fine) I reckon the sponsorship stuff mainly boils down to the issue of whether Etihad & Etisalat are related parties that we should have disclosed in the published accounts. That was mentioned in the CAS verdict and appears to have been the driver in the APT rules that we're challenging.

The fact that the Etihad sponsorship was deemed fair value by CAS (and also by UEFA back in 2014) means that this is unlikely to be successfully challenged by the PL, alongside the issue of it being disguised equity investment. I can't see any way those outcomes could be disputed by an independent panel. So if the sponsorship was fair value, and properly accounted for, what's left? Related parties is the answer. And if it was fair value and properly accounted for, what difference would it make if Etihad & Etisalat were related parties? None, other than we and our auditors would be judged as failing to recognise them as such. That would make zero difference to our ability to spend money and gain sporting advantage, but it would force us to declare the value of the contract, plus we'd be guilty of a technical accounting issue. So there could be no points deduction on that basis, and that's nearly half the charges.

I spent the afternoon with a journalist before the Chelsea game. He writes for the very prestigious New Yorker magazine (NOT the NY Times) and he's an Arsenal season ticket holder. So I went into this a bit nervous, given the mentality of Arsenal fans. But even he said the charges appeared to be theatre, rather than having any substance. David Conn, whose tune changed completely once the CAS verdict came out (probably under editorial orders) dismissed the original UEFA charges as not having any substance. And he was quite right.

Since that initial shock two years ago the scales have dropped from my eyes more and more. These charges are baseless and completely without substance.
Click to expand...

All this evidence was available prior to the charges being laid which should cause a seismic shock to the organisation, proof of a witch hunt.
 
Vic said:
I just took it to mean City sought damages but until the partial verdict (on the substance of the claim) hadn't put any quantum on the claim. The wording suggests the panel expected some offer of settlement by the PL. We might find out next week! But it seems odd that City could win their case that the rules were ("by object") designed to be unfair and get no compensation, other than the satisfaction of winning (and facing a defendant that then pretended they'd won the case).
Click to expand...
It’s not odd. You need a loss to claim damages. And it is far from clear they have any loss caused by the elements of the rules deemed unlawful. Indeed, most of the meaningful changes required related to changes to the rules subsequent to City’s processes (Etihad was reviewed under the pre 2024 rules) and furthermore, the omission of shareholder loans has caused City no tangible losses.
 
slbsn said:
It’s not odd. You need a loss to claim damages. And it is far from clear they have any loss caused by the elements of the rules deemed unlawful. Indeed, most of the meaningful changes required related to changes to the rules subsequent to City’s processes (Etihad was reviewed under the pre 2024 rules) and furthermore, the omission of shareholder loans has caused City no tangible losses.
Click to expand...

I’ll clutch a few straws…..

The advantage it’s given opposing clubs has cost us points & additional income. (Let’s see how good Pannick is if he wins with this)
 
inchy14 said:
How can a loan not be fair market value?
Click to expand...
Let’s say Arsenal get a shareholder loan (which they have) and they get an APR % less than what they would get on the open market, that wouldn’t be FMV.
Let’s say they get the terms over say 20 years, but the open market would only offer it over 15 years, then that wouldn’t be FMV.
Let’s now say that their shareholder decides to just null the loan midway through it’s terms, or turn it into equity, that wouldn’t be FMV because that doesn’t happen on the open market (unless they failed to pay).

If the Premier League are arguing that clubs can’t sign sponsorship and commercial deals with related companies that would either be above FMV, and in Newcastle’s case, has to be below FMV, then surely shareholder loans have to be at worse rates and terms than what you can achieve on the open market with rules preventing converting it into equity.
 
cheekybids said:
I’ll clutch a few straws…..

The advantage it’s given opposing clubs has cost us points & additional income. (Let’s see how good Pannick is if he wins with this)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the club isn't in this for damages. What I am not clear on, though, is what is in it for the club (apart from approval of the Etihad deal obviously). I still think we are missing a big part of the club's strategy just because so little information is in the public domain ....

Maybe the expected final resolution of the first APT case next week (if it happens, isn't it too soon?) will give us some more clues.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I'm pretty sure the club isn't in this for damages. What I am not clear on, though, is what is in it for the club (apart from approval of the Etihad deal obviously). I still think we are missing a big part of the club's strategy just because so little information is in the public domain ....

Maybe the expected final resolution of the first APT case next week (if it happens, isn't it too soon?) will give us some more clues.
Click to expand...

I agree I was just being a prick.

I seriously believe if you want to get to the root of a problem then you keep asking questions, you scrutinise & highlight the corruption.

City know it’s clear & organised, they’ve said so & it’s no open secret. Every unreasonable, unfair, unlawful action towards City has been deliberate. It’s threatened everything we have done & it’s sullied our reputation. Every time they litigate they get to ask questions, they get to ask for evidence, they get to show the inner workings of the premier league & the cartel.

Now if City know they’ve acted accordingly all the time & they haven’t then keep going, use it to your advantage, let them realise they are under the microscope & maybe face the full force of the law.
 
cheekybids said:
I agree I was just being a prick.

I seriously believe if you want to get to the root of a problem then you keep asking questions, you scrutinise & highlight the corruption.

City know it’s clear & organised, they’ve said so & it’s no open secret. Every unreasonable, unfair, unlawful action towards City has been deliberate. It’s threatened everything we have done & it’s sullied our reputation. Every time they litigate they get to ask questions, they get to ask for evidence, they get to show the inner workings of the premier league & the cartel.

Now if City know they’ve acted accordingly all the time & they haven’t then keep going, use it to your advantage, let them realise they are under the microscope & maybe face the full force of the law.
Click to expand...
The problem is there is a difference between knowing it & proving it, especially as the tribunal sided with the EPL witness evidence over the written emails, shows you what the idiot magic hat knows.

In my opinion we are trying to get the APT November amendments thrown out by putting pressure on Everton & Chelsea, who look like they've been bought off with no further investigations under ffp.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
As an idiot i will put my opinion in.First of the PL is a members group, and as such all member bodies have a rule. For the benefit of all. Anyone can propose an illegal activity, they can second it, and they can vote it in. The governing body has a duty to examine the benefits and legality before putting the proposal into action.
When City sued the PL, they proved that the PL governing body was not fit for purpose, but around 23 charges were unproven, how close City were to proving them remains unknown. the PL made a statement claiming the Panel said the new PSR rules were needed. This is a lie and someone needs to be held accountable.
It is being said that City spending suggest City have won the 115, this is highly unlikely, as any punishment is likely years away if it ever happens.
But the 115 could have a bearing on City suing the PL again, because while it is important that the PL investigates all suspicious activity, it also has to show it is not harassing one of it`s members, so has any other club been investigated in the same way City have, even multiple times as the PL were involved with the UEFA case. The 115 is a double edged sword what the PL lose, City may well add to their case, which would make the 23 unproven very interesting.
As you can see i rely on the experts on these pages for financial understanding. But i view this now as a disciplinary, followed by a grievance, followed by another grievance, it can be kept in house but is clearly going to court and unfortunately for the PL, the employee is rich enough to take the costs, which is the normal stumbling block.
Click to expand...
The case is following the same pattern as a disciplinary hearing. There has been a lot of bad blood and bitterness. It is obvious that Masters is being pushed by people who are allowing their emotions to rule over common sense. It is amazing how many seemingly smart people allow their egos to dictate their response in business and legal issues. There is certainly no shortage of wealthy lawyers.
 
foggy1974 said:
The problem is there is a difference between knowing it & proving it, especially as the tribunal sided with the EPL witness evidence over the written emails, shows you what the idiot magic hat knows.

In my opinion we are trying to get the APT November amendments thrown out by putting pressure on Everton & Chelsea, who look like they've been bought off with no further investigations under ffp.
Click to expand...

They keep siding & we keep probing but that’s arbitration.

What happens if our intention is to prosecute?

I can’t believe that no one & I mean no one takes the hit for this.
 
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