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

[mixer]

Can anyone say in a few words what City want to gain from the APT challenges? I am totally confused as to what we have “won”

Back to page 1 LOL

 

[CC1]

In order of importance, imo. As I understand it all.

1. The right to sign deals that a sponsor feels worth it, as opposed to this being decided by the PL
2. The right to value the club assets and shares according to the market rather than nationality of owners/parties involved.
3. The right to use full income in PSR calculations
4. That other clubs that have free shareholder loans approved may have to apply interest payments, balancing it out at least some way.
5. Moral high ground, in the sense they warned the PL the rules were unlawful, that they were open to challenge, and have proved that right.
6. Above, a second time with how the verdict was interpreted.
7. PR and optics, which despite best efforts of the media show the club is a lot more competent than is suggested and certainly than the PL.
8. Potential for claiming damages for losses if they can demonstrate that.
9. Potential for the PL to now cover costs of the whole thing.

Brill. Thank you :-)

 

[CC1]

Some say we've lost, some say we've won, quite what we've won or lost, i have no fucking idea.
Hope that helps

My thoughts too :-)

 

[dadnlad]

We never wanted APT to be scrapped tbf, just for it to be fair and legal. Which it clearly wasn’t
The tribunal criticising the PL for ‘sleight of hand’ is probably as damning a statement as you’ll ever see in a dry legal judgement

I guess sooner or later INEOS will sponsor rags to the tune of millions

 

[Chris in London]

I stand corrected :)

Was the rest of the post bullshit as well?

Dunno.

Stopped reading there!

;)

 

[CC1]

The PL blocked City from sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank because after they assessed them as part of APT Rules (deals done by clubs with parties directly or indirectly connected to them) the PL said they were above market value. City didn't feel they were and asked the PL to show them there workings, the PL refused. City then took the action. It's worth noting that City originally voted in favour of APT rules but it's the way the PL has handled them that has pissed them off.
What we (and everyone else) have won, if replacement rules aren't brought in, is the ability to have Etihad to sponsor us for 1 billion pounds a year and there would be nothing the PL could do about it.
Also worth noting that there is no indication we want to do the above, the rules were brought in shortly (within days) after the Newcastle takeover it's generally agreed the rules were to stop them.
We could also feasibly sue them for lost sponsorship with regards to the two sponsorship deals.

Cheers. Straightforward summary

 

[Mancity1980]

Had a bit more time to tweak it...


View attachment 146838

They don’t negotiate they eliminate. Love it!

 

[CC1]

I guess sooner or later INEOS will sponsor rags to the tune of millions

:-)

 

[horlock_was_super]

Where did this come from? I could not find it on the City Website. Is it genuine?

It was me.
I was coming out of the club shop and some bloke stuck a microphone up my nose and asked me for my thoughts.

It does appear that I have been misquoted a little though because I am sure I said: Fuck off you rag/dipper/arse loving twunts.

 

[blueste41]

To me the PL has won. I mean the teams that constitute the PL. They get to have a level playing field instead of allowing those clubs that can afford interest-free £billion loans to circumvent PSR restrictions. All clubs are treated more fairly.

Id imagine there's a few rulings that have just become accepted over time even though they are there to protect the cartel. Maybe our club have just had enough.

That's a one sided view and exactly which owner is able to provide a £billion pound loan? Owner loans was only a very small point of this action, no club is managing to save enough in interest to beat PSR because of owner loans.
The bigger picture is associated party sponsorship deals and City don't want an open door they just want to be allowed fair value which they believe the PL denied them.
Nobody, including City, wants Sela to be able to sponsorship Newcastle for an astronomical amount.

 

[bigA]

I guess sooner or later INEOS will sponsor rags to the tune of millions

And nothing would be about it if it was above fair market value. Again it'll be one rule for United, different set of rules for the rest.

 

[tonea2003]

Who is to say we won't one day be the club with the potential for a £1bn deal, be it Etihad or anyone else. The ambition and future growth of the club should not be curtailed now, which obviously impacts immediate development, but also the long term ambitions which the club have shown they are able to look at years ahead.

absolutely bang on the money and that is what the cartel clubs fear and are desperately trying to stop

 

[halfcenturyup]

Dunno.

Stopped reading there!

;)

Bloody lawyers .....

 

[Stoned Rose]

In order of importance, imo. As I understand it all.

1. The right to sign deals that a sponsor feels worth it, as opposed to this being decided by the PL
2. The right to value the club assets and shares according to the market rather than nationality of owners/parties involved.
3. The right to use full income in PSR calculations
4. That other clubs that have free shareholder loans approved may have to apply interest payments, balancing it out at least some way.
5. Moral high ground, in the sense they warned the PL the rules were unlawful, that they were open to challenge, and have proved that right.
6. Above, a second time with how the verdict was interpreted.
7. PR and optics, which despite best efforts of the media show the club is a lot more competent than is suggested and certainly than the PL.
8. Potential for claiming damages for losses if they can demonstrate that.
9. Potential for the PL to now cover costs of the whole thing.

Well avocadone.

 

[Coatigan]

Well avocadone.

Haha, I was trying to wrap my head around that thinking it was some play on advocate, ffs lol.

 

[Coatigan]

Well Avocadone

(Different from the previous one)

 

[spiny]

I think there is a battle to protect our reputation which is much broader than just the legal cases. City have finally taken the gloves off.

I have to agree and return to the original ADUG statement that they had a 20 year plan in place after the takeover. Too many on this and other threads seem preoccupied by short term battles and legal nuances expecting a simplistic predetermined interpretations and speculating legal outcomes, rather than wait for decisions.

My impression is that City felt that if they had taken the gloves off before being established and acknowledged as successful, it could have been seen as being upstarts with new money throwing its weight around. This is how we were initially portrayed by the UEFA G14. Now we are acting from a position of strength.

Currently we are recognised as top level football team and club globally as well as in England. Manchester City was always a major football club even before the takeover by Sheikh Mansour, in spite of the efforts of Peter Swales.

City have proved to be a model of excellence on and off the field, cementing our place at the top table of best clubs in the world. The fan base has grown to match the success confirmed by the North Stand expansion reflected in tv viewing and social media statistics figures.

Again, this is reflected in record revenues with a model of sustainability in line with aims stated at the start of FFP. The old G14 and red cartel clubs have largely fallen behind in every respect and are fighting a rearguard action with public opinion turning against them.

Whilst legal and finacial issues are currently at the fore, Khaldoon and co still appear totally focussed on achieving their objectives to become the best team in the world on and off the field. "Protecting our reputation" is part and parcel.

 

[mcfcphil]

would Abu Dhabi Bank not have a claim against the PL?

They have been prevented from marketing their brand through the champions of the premier league (and therefore prevented from enjoying the intended commercial benefits) due to unlawful rules put in place by a third party.

Let’s say Pepsi wanted to agree a new record-breaking advertising deal for Super Bowl but were prevented from doing so due to unlawful rules put in place by the NFL.

But at the same time Coca Cola was advertising during the Super Bowl with no problem because they had a deal with a partner who weren’t impacted by the unlawful rules.

I reckon Pepsi would be pretty pissed off.

I don’t know how that’s framed in law, whether it’s discriminatory etc, but it certainly feels like Abu Dhabi Bank should feel like a commercially-aggrieved party in this.

 

[Vic]

I promise not to come on here for a while but as I have seen this, APT 1 reserved any consideration of the null and void question (and the rest) purely because no submissions were made in June.

"The effect of the declarations issued by the Tribunal was not an issue at the June Hearingand so the first Partial Final Award did not deal with it."

Notably, the follow on determination, says "That all questions of costs are reserved" but says nothing on damages. Whether that means such applications are withdrawn I don't know. I guess logically, City could not make damages submissions without this decision. Perhaps this is why it is called the Second Partial Final Award. Then again, I'd have thought damages may have been mentioned as outstanding in that final conclusion.

It also says: "However, there remains for decision (in the fresh arbitration commenced on 20 January2025) whether the November 2024 Amended APT Rules are valid and effective."

Again, this suggests there are no further APT1 decisions outstanding.

Agreed, except APT1 was silent on the null and void issue (rather than explicitly reserving judgment). I would have taken that to mean that, without explicitly saying they reserved the separation issue, the judgment that the rules were unlawful applied to the entire rules so they were void.

I assume that's exactly what City told the other clubs. Frankly, if the issue was in doubt, I'd say the Tribunal failed to be clear when they should have been.

 

[Tevez City]

You can't have no rules at all IMO

You can have rules to protect clubs from being bankrupt

But Why as an owner I can't invest my own money into my business?

Is that crime in any type of business apart from football ?


I am small cafe and wants to compete with $tarbuck$ around the corner, as soon as I start taking some of the market share , $tarbuck$ are complaining to the authorities that its not allowed for this small cafe to invest much they are causing us trouble by offering higher salaries to our employees, we can't allow that

And then $tarbuck$ come with new set of rules to prevent the new small cafe from growing at uncomfortable rate.

let them rely on their profits only and any other source of financing is considered as cheating by the Cartel because they want to dominate and manipulate the market as they like.


Anyway, the main point that I want to deliver :)

Is that direct investment, from owner pocket to the club account is not a crime

As long you are not risking the club into financial crisis. ( By having maybe bank guarantees or Certified Checks )

IF those hypocrite Cartel clubs want fairness, let them find a model that will allow Getafe to compete with Madrid or Como with Milan when it comes to acquiring new players.