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

[dadnlad]

Winter n custis Sunday morning knew what they were doing playing the Innocent "why can't new owners invest and improve club in say first 3/4 years and then get back in line. They just wanted cartel headline

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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

Ineos are billions in debt and can’t afford anything. They owe more than United or the Glazers themselves. About £10bn in debt according to Saturday’s Guardian.

 

[M12Blue]

Ineos are billions in debt and can’t afford anything. They owe more than United or the Glazers themselves.

Qataris will be back

 

[Vic]

I completely disagree.

I can well imagine that one of the things motivating City is that if we are subject to a regime that permits a panel appointed by the PL to decide we’re not worth what a sponsor is prepared to pay us, that same panel can decide how much interest LFC and AFC should be paying on their shareholder loans. Even if the answer is “not very much in the grand scheme of things” it will erode their spending power to a degree.

They wanted these rules, they can fucking we’ll abide by them

We'll surely be at the Tribunal again if we think the panel's Fair Market Valuations are unfair.

 

[citizen_maine]

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.

They don't. That's precisely why we have FFP, PSR and APT

 

[Vic]

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.

City didn't vote for the APT Rules in 2021. They'd supported an earlier version but warned that the final version might be open to legal challenge - but didn't challenge till the 2024 amendments (but argued they'd always been unlawful).

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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.

I know that was meant as an analogy, but that literally happens. Big corporations opinions on regulations seem to be remarkably flexible depending on whether it will make it more difficult or easier to compete with them.

 

[Vic]

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

That was just on a narrow issue, not the whole case.

 

[halfcenturyup]

City didn't vote for the APT Rules in 2021. They'd supported an earlier version but warned that the final version might be open to legal challenge - but didn't challenge till the 2024 amendments (but argued they'd always been informed).

Iirc, the club voted for the continued development of the rules based on an agreed framework, which almost everyone describes as voting for the actual rules. It's weird.

 

[Vic]

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.

Off piste a bit but how would one quantify the discrete commercial benefits to Emirates from sponsoring a competition (FA cup) and a club playing in that competition (Arsenal)?

 

[Vic]

Iirc, the club voted for the continued development of the rules based on an agreed framework, which almost everyone describes as voting for the actual rules. It's weird.

The Tribunal (APT 1) #47 says City and Newcastle voted against the Rules in December 2021 and City reserved the right to challenge the rules and the FMV process.

For the avoidance of doubt, we challenged and we won.

 

[LongsightM13]

Reminder of the segment read out on Sky as our 'statement', for anyone confused what I'm on about.

Listening to that I think the presenters have fucked up there tbh
I would venture only the very first brief and non-committal sentence was from City
I think the remainder was subsequent content from news coverage, but for some reason they’ve treated it as a continuation of City’s quote
Even the language is in newspaper speak

 

[Vic]

Listening to that I think the presenters have fucked up there tbh
I would venture only the very first brief and non-committal sentence was from City
I think the remainder was subsequent content from news coverage, but for some reason they’ve treated it as a continuation of City’s quote
Even the language is in newspaper speak

We're a massive club making seismic waves.

 

[Coatigan]

Listening to that I think the presenters have fucked up there tbh
I would venture only the very first brief and non-committal sentence was from City
I think the remainder was subsequent content from news coverage, but for some reason they’ve treated it as a continuation of City’s quote
Even the language is in newspaper speak

Totally agree. When I was listening to it, even the first time, I thought, did they forget to say when the statement finished. Because I doubt the club would have given a figure of what the cost would be for example. But then they did go on to say 'the statement finishes with', suggesting that was all part of it.

Maybe it is how they delivered what was quoted and what not, as you say.

 

[applecentral]

Why should they?

Edit: There seems to be an idea that the PL has some obligation to inform the authorities if they consider there has been some activity that represents fraudulent activity. Unless I am very wrong, there is no such obligation. Football isn't a regulated industry (yet) and just ask yourself what would be the outcome if they did report it? There would be a multi-year criminal investigation eventually leading, in the worst case, to a multi-year court case in an environment where the standard of proof is so much higher than a civil case and therefore the likelihood of conviction so much lower. And then, when the criminal case is eventually thrown out for lack of evidence, which it would most likely be, the PL would just resume its breach of contract case in the civil environment anyway.

Exactly why, when the PL presumably wants a quick resolution, would it put itself through all that? The time for the PL to involve the authorities, if at all, would be after a favourable (to the PL) civil judgment. And I doubt there is any likelihood of that happening. I have used the words snowflake and hell before to describe that possibility.

The idea that there not being a criminal investigation is some sort of proof that the allegations aren't serious is a nonsense and it does my head in that it is raised every couple of months. It may be useful in calming badly-informed City fans down, or in shutting even more badly-informed rival fans up, but it has no use at all, in my view, in a sensible, grown up debate around the nature of the allegations.

Brilliant post.

 

[BlueNomad]

It doesn't

What, seem pissy or entitled to an opinion?

Your response, whichever question it supposedly answers, suggests otherwise.

 

[LongsightM13]

That was just on a narrow issue, not the whole case.

The point about the language stands, though?

 

[Champions again in 2012]

One was read out on Sky and put on this thread but that’s the only time I’ve seen or heard it. City described its implications as “seismic” which was interesting.

Thank you. I would expect any statement issued by the club to be on the official club website and the fact it isn’t there makes me question whether Sky had an unofficial statement from somebody at the club

 

[Stoned Rose]

https://fb.watch/xP2UNJDrE_/?mibextid=z4kJoQ

(Different from the previous one)

Doesn’t open mate?

 

[halfcenturyup]

The Tribunal (APT 1) #47 says City and Newcastle voted against the Rules in December 2021 and City reserved the right to challenge the rules and the FMV process.

For the avoidance of doubt, we challenged and we won.

I am taking about paragraph 41, which a lot of people quote as proof City voted for the rules. Which is the weird bit.