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

Didsbury Dave said:
This reminds me of an advisor I had when I first set up, 20 odd years ago. He said “one of the benefits of having your own business is the freedom to tell anyone to fuck off”. I’ve never forgotten it.
Click to expand...

Haha. Until a global pandemic tells us to fuck off!!
 
Manchester1894 said:
At what point do we have a valid argument that bottom half of the table Manchester United are inflating sponsorships despite having won very little in a decade
Click to expand...
Good point well made but think it’s even more fundamental. The issue for the scum is Trade Descriptions legislation with their instance in continuing to brand themselves as a football club and not a circus.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Does this unshackle Newcastle from not being able to spend?
Click to expand...

If I understand it it still stops City from the new Etihad deal so I guess it still stops Newcastle. To be honest I'm totally confused the headlines say City win, to others it's seems a small win nothing to get excited about.
I haven't got a clue what to think :(
 
Tim of the Oak said:
It’s damning for the red Cartel that they won’t show Dickie BTEC the door. Masters wil probably sack the person hired from Sky who did the FMV calculations.

5 Live didn’t mention APT2. There was one snippet of Roan moaning though about this could lead to an unfair playing field lol
Click to expand...
That tw*t needs to be sued. His report is specifically racist against city and newcastle.
 
It may only be a small victory. But what it’s pointing to is favouritism by the PL to the cartel.
We keep turning over these stones and uncovering the big picture
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Use the ignore button and stop being offended then.
Click to expand...
There is absolutely no need for me to put him on ignore.
Just because I am a bit miffed at how he has arrived at his opion and I have questioned him on it does not mean I am not interested in his views on the subject. I shall just refrain from conversing with his personally.
I am not offended in the slightest.
 
slbsn said:
What a silly response especially the last line.

You have to show a LOSS and you have a duty to MITIGATE such loss. And you need to show CAUSATION ie that the rejection was the causative reason for such loss. Selling the collateral to other parties is mitigation of the loss. You can only claim the bit you LOST. Not the gross. The PL does not offer an indemnity. It is a claim for a breach of contract.

I can't help it if people don't understand what I have explained many times. The parking ticket analogy is complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
What does that bolded sentence mean? It's not a debt, that a bank or other financial institution sells to a third party if they don't think they can collect it. In this particular situation do we even need to do anything to mitigate any loss we may have suffered?

I'm well aware of the legal issues around mitigation of loss. I spent two years studying Commercial Law as part of my degree. I'm well aware that (a) there has to be a tangible loss (b) you have to show that there was a directly attributable cause of that loss and (c) you did your best to mitigate that loss or not make it worse.

So if these contracts were due to come into force in July this year, there has, as yet, been no effective loss. I'm fine with that.

But let's assume those two disputed sponsorship agreements were planned to start in July 2024, and that the Etihad one was for £90m and the FAB one for £10m per annum. Let's assume also that the PL said that Etihad couldn't be more than £60m and FAB £5m. We therefore had to renegotiate those contracts to those amounts. I think that constitutes a directly attributable cause.

So in this example, in this financial year alone we've "lost" a potential £35m that we could have received under those contracts, had we not been forced to amend them, under rules that have now been declared unlawful. I take that to mean that the conditions imposed are now unenforceable, and that the original proposed amounts should stand. In that case, we could collect the "lost" £35m under the original contracts and there's no loss.

But in the unlikely event that Etihad & FAB were to say "Sorry, we have a contract, that's what you told us to pay and we're not renegotiating" or the APT rules were lawful, then we've effectively suffered a potential loss.

Having spent a number of years working for an insurance company, I know that if you claimed for damage caused by a water leak, and you'd let that leak carry on for a while without making an attempt to fix it, wand your failure made the damage far worse and the cost to fix it much higher than it would have been to just fix the original leak, you would be rightly accused of failing to mitigate your loss, and any payout reduced.

This is around contract law though, and there has been no breach of contract that I can see. In my example there has been offer & acceptance. Etihad has contracted to pay us £90m and we've accepted. Neither party has breached that contract; the problem has come by a third-party who isn't a party to the contract imposing an arbitrary value on it, under rules that were subsequently declared unlawful.

I struggle to see how it's our duty to mitigate that, in this particular scenario, by going out and trying to find an additional £35m.
 
Last edited:
I think @slbsn is probably just a bit more pragmatic than some. Yes the APT rules have been null and voided which is a win but then Stefan asks so what? The tribunal agreed there is a need in principle for an associated party test to take place which means sponsorships can be limited going forward. The challenge is for the league to draft the rules that are lawful and not to drop the intention. All this is said without really knowing City's game plan particularly with APT2. Unless I'm spectacularly missing his points

With regards shareholder loans - perhaps someone can clarify? If these are backdated or even going forward if a fmv test is done on these does actual money need to be transferred to anyone? Or does the interest payment just need to deducted on the PSR calc ie the psr calculation will say -£20m for interest payments but that -£20m will still stay sat in arsenal's bank in an accounting black hole?
 
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