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

slbsn said:
Correct. But of course we don't know what Etihad proposed and what the PL were prepared to sign off as FMV. The spread from 5% to 8% was just a guess. Hard to see how anything less than RPI could be rejected though so that suggests Etihad proposed at least 5%
Click to expand...
Worth remembering that RPI will essentially cease to exist from February 2030 onwards, so any annual growth rate judged by that benchmark will need to be reduced by around 60-100bp.
 
Micky Blue said:
they didn’t get it wrong.
They know what they’re doing.
It’s more shit to throw at us and defame us with.

It’s a concerted effort to make us the bad guys.
The BBC are just utter trash.
How they get away with their blatant bias is both shocking and terrifying.
Click to expand...
The more that cancel their licence fee the better
 
KS55 said:
The compromise agreement will cover such matters in detail. Whether it will ever be published I don’t know.
Click to expand...
We know that the Premier League has now accepted that the deal with Etihad was negotiated and executed at arm’s length, on a genuine commercial basis. So either they have green-listed H.H. Sheikh Mansour/Etihad, or they have modified the FMV tool.
 
Is it just me? or am I missing something? The statement is very vague and doesn’t clarify who agreed to exactly what, and furthermore it does not mention anything about us being able to activate the etihad deal or any sponsorship of any kind. If anything it sounds like we’ve backed down and took one on the chin.
 
Keith Moon said:
We know that the Premier League has now accepted that the deal with Etihad was negotiated and executed at arm’s length, on a genuine commercial basis. So either they have green-listed H.H. Sheikh Mansour/Etihad, or they have modified the FMV tool.
Click to expand...
That is a stretch. They have no basis to question the Etihad deal save for FMV. Such an assessment required neither a green listing or any modifications to FMV (which is, in any event, required for normal accounting). I suspect City simply managed to demonstrate that the CAGR escalator was reasonable at X%. The PL can always revisit if there was a Der Speigel type leak in the future or there were other grounds.
 
theres only one carlito said:
Is it just me? or am I missing something? The statement is very vague and doesn’t clarify who agreed to exactly what, and furthermore it does not mention anything about us being able to activate the etihad deal or any sponsorship of any kind. If anything it sounds like we’ve backed down and took one on the chin.
Click to expand...
Manchester have accepted the Premier League’s new ATP rules and have received assurances that they will not be treated differently when securing sponsorship with companies linked to their owners. Manchester City are now able to complete a hugely lucrative, long-term deal with Etihad Airways.

I hope that eases your worries.
 
John Wayne said:
I really don't see how 115 can be "settled" at this point.
Click to expand...
City agrees to a slap on the wrist for non-cooperation. Maybe something for Mancini's compensation too.

PL admit that City didn't breach rules and that they were able to determine that through the additional information provided and brought forward at the hearing.

That's a realistic path to settlement. Just a matter of finding the balance so that both parties get something. Maybe that's not it, but it's a framework.
 
I've seen the news and skimmed a couple of pages but I personally see it only as a positive. We don't want or need the club to be constantly embroiled in legal disputes. All it does is add to the rhetoric about us being the bad guys.

But we have settled, surely on the basis of getting what we wanted in the first place. And in exchange we have hopefully agreed to end disputes around these rules. Our owners will still find the best way for us to be successful within them moving forwards.

I get fans want us to stick it to them and to give a big fuck you to the cartel, rather than join it, but we have done that on the pitch and, should we be successful with the 115 charges, will have done it off the pitch too.

Seeing posts from the likes of Collymore aka the best Swedish attacker at Anfield until Isak rocked up, will make the 115 verdict all the much sweeter if it falls out way.
 
slbsn said:
That is a stretch. They have no basis to question the Etihad deal save for FMV. Such an assessment required neither a green listing or any modifications to FMV (which is, in any event, required for normal accounting). I suspect City simply managed to demonstrate that the CAGR escalator was reasonable at X%. The PL can always revisit if there was a Der Speigel type leak in the future or there were other grounds.
Click to expand...

Why would FMV for Etihad be required for normal accounting?
 
I don't think we ever challenged the fundamental principle of APT rules, just the implementation. And I'd agree that shareholder loans were the lever we used to attack them, but the underlying issue was the way the PL dealt with the Etihad/First Abu Dhabi Bank/Emirates Palace sponsorships.

It could well be that there really is no linkage between Levy's sacking, this announcement and the outcome of the 115. But with the timing it's hard not to speculate about back-room deals.

Whatever people want to think or say about my information, it said that the PL came out of the hearing very badly, and were desperate to save face. Maybe this is all part of that. We may never know.
 
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