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

slbsn said:
Yes - we wouldn't have settled without something. And City have just an enormous sponsorship underpinning the club's funding for a generation.
Click to expand...
If the Etihad deal does go through. I doubt the club will see any future deal top this anyway. So anything slightly lower should pass fmv
 
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...
The reports in the Times and Mail, which were released concurrently with the official press release, look like they have come verbatim from City. They are claiming our success. There isn’t a counter narrative (yet) from the Premier League which makes some of us think the PL are happy for that to be agreed position of both parties.
 
GLBlue1995 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Having gone through a full IC hearing though, I'd have thought the opportunity to settle would have long since disappeared.
 
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...
Okay, that’s of course possible, but if this is true — ‘@ManCity are confident they will not be treated differently to any other top-flight club going forward’ — then they must surely have secured something more in the deal to ensure they don’t end up in the same situation again.
 
I think City got what they wanted though I do have some questions. I believe the tribunal for APT ! ruled that there could be no objection to the principle of APT on grounds of maintaining competitive balance, though in their original form they were unlawful, one of which was the failure to include shareholder loans in the regulations. As a result they are now included from this month (?). Is this only new loans or existing ones as well?

Then there is the question of the sponsorship deals which the PL blocked. Opinion appears to be that these are now unblocked. City seem confident this is the case - but we don't know - and the club are said to believe that we will not be treated differently from other clubs in future. Is this because the PL has agreed that instead of the decision on FMV being largely the PL's to make it has agreed to employ the services of companies with areal experience in making such judgements? And that shareholder loans will be dealt with in the same way?

If we are satisfied on these grounds I think we are rightly vey satisfied indeed because I doubt City want a free for all. To coin a phrase we just want financial fair play.
 
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...
I agree. Can you persuade @slbsn that modifying the FMV tool is not changing the rules or giving City an exclusive deal?!
Given that the whole point of the APT rules was to stop Newcastle in their tracks and to reign City in, it would be astonishing if the PL then chose the benchmarks without bias when the method of choice was specified only vaguely in the rules.
 
Last edited:
How can unlawful practices now be accepted and binding in future. Surely they must still be unlawful.
 
KS55 said:
I agree. Can you persuade @slbsn that modifying the FMV tool is not changing the rules or giving City an exclusive deal?!
Click to expand...
What is the suggestion here? The methodology of assessing FMV is extensively set out in the rules. So what is this suggestion?
 
Milesvk said:


Apparently this talksport piece, it's a win for the Premier League.
Click to expand...


A settlement is typically a win for both parties or or one wouldn't be reached. The risk for the PL included lengthy legal battles undermining their authority and potentially causing further amendment to the rules. The risk for City was losing on the key points and having intense scrutiny over what we were trying to achieve, plus the legal costs and time.

So you would anticipate the PL were happy to give us something to avoid further legal disputes on this matter and I would anticipate City were happy to stop legal proceeding on these rules, with the caveat we reserve the right to challenge future amendments/rules and enabling us to secure the sponsorship arrangement we wanted - perhaps slightly reduced as an extra incentive to the PL.

Win win.
 
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