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

Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've not got time to engage in essays. It means marketing collateral ie the package of rights sold. There may be a better turn of phrase. Apologies.

You don't understand mitigation. But yes if we have an unrecoverable loss due to the breach (it must be a breach of contract claim) then we can claim.
 
slbsn said:
Not that we know
Click to expand...

Here is the AI thoughts! [emoji3166][emoji854]

Manchester City have expressed dissatisfaction with the Premier League's current system for assessing the fair market value (FMV) of sponsorship deals, particularly with regards to who conducts these assessments. The club has challenged the legitimacy of the Premier League's Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, arguing that the process and the entities involved in determining FMV are flawed.

There are concerns that the data company, Nielsen Sports, which has been used by the Premier League for these valuations, also works with other Premier League clubs, potentially leading to conflicts of interest. Manchester City believes this could result in an unfair assessment of their commercial deals, especially those involving associated parties where fair market value assessments are critical to ensure compliance with league financial regulations.

This situation has led to legal challenges by Manchester City against the Premier League, with outcomes suggesting that aspects of the APT rules were deemed unlawful or in need of amendment. These developments indicate Manchester City's discontent with both the process and the parties involved in evaluating their sponsorship deals' FMV.
 
slbsn said:
No I think if people are going to get stuck in, I am perfectly entitled to defend myself. What are you talking about then if not the contemporaneous pieces?
Click to expand...
You were discussing the APT rules with Jordan and White on a show around the time City launched their case. You stated it was a complicated legal issue which could go either way and near the end, said you thought City were unlikely to win, or had a slim chance of winning? Now if you genuinely think, me repeating this, and just politely pointing out that even you with your detailed legal knowledge, can sometimes be wrong with your honest opinions, is in some way me having a go at you? or trolling you? You really need to take a break mate, as that wasn't my intention. That's the end of this conversation for me. I've got a game to go to. Have a good day.
 
waspish said:
Here is the AI thoughts! [emoji3166][emoji854]

Manchester City have expressed dissatisfaction with the Premier League's current system for assessing the fair market value (FMV) of sponsorship deals, particularly with regards to who conducts these assessments. The club has challenged the legitimacy of the Premier League's Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, arguing that the process and the entities involved in determining FMV are flawed.

There are concerns that the data company, Nielsen Sports, which has been used by the Premier League for these valuations, also works with other Premier League clubs, potentially leading to conflicts of interest. Manchester City believes this could result in an unfair assessment of their commercial deals, especially those involving associated parties where fair market value assessments are critical to ensure compliance with league financial regulations.

This situation has led to legal challenges by Manchester City against the Premier League, with outcomes suggesting that aspects of the APT rules were deemed unlawful or in need of amendment. These developments indicate Manchester City's discontent with both the process and the parties involved in evaluating their sponsorship deals' FMV.
Click to expand...

AI is going to make society worse isn't it?
 
slbsn said:
Having re-watched that video, I expand my "fuck off" to anybody getting stuck into me personally. x
Click to expand...

2958.gif
 
The parochialism/tribalism that football endures is plunging new depths since the APT1 judgement.
The sheer ignorance, jealousy and refusal to believe we are actually the force for good is ever magnifying how fans don’t want fair play let alone the binary count of their collective IQ’s.
A cursory glance at Facebook this morning reveals so much about the straw clutching efforts to make sense of it all.
In addition to the usual excuses the most incredulous is “why are we (City) trying to upset everything and just accept the rules as they are”.
Social Media and the ability to publish lies to the world. Take your seat on the hand cart to hell.
Love this club btw.
 
So massive PR win, ramifications of said win prob not be a lot. Back to the drawing board to draft new ones and move on?
 

Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

Popcorn. Part 2.
 
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