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

TheGhost said:
I didn’t realise the charges dropped on the 65th anniversary of the Munich Air tragedy.
Click to expand...
Coincidence? No deliberate. City legend Frank Swift was amongst those killed. The timing was crass, meant to highlight our corruption against their legend. Black and white.
 
Keith Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...
They were always treated the same as other clubs on FMV and APT. As if the PL would ever accept that they haven't been treated equally historically
 
John Wayne said:
Having gone through a full IC hearing though, I'd have thought the opportunity to settle would have long since disappeared.
Click to expand...
Fair. I'd pose that there's usually a window where the parties will at least consider settlement when they think a decision is imminent.

As with the APT challenges, it's always seemed to me that a settlement was preferable in that City and the EPL will be partners long after the ruling is issued. Mutual compromise is better for that long-term business relationship. If things went well for City, and they can get a palatable deal that largely exonerates them, that's hard to not strongly consider. They've done real damage to the PL and Masters through this and the APT attacks. Cost the PL a ton of money. If City could put this all behind them with a slap on the wrist, that's awfully hard to turn down.
 
Big Joe Corrigan said:
I can’t see Khaldoon accepting that, not after what he said.
Click to expand...

I hope you’re right but he’s a business man above all. I’d like to hope he takes them to the cleaners but think there’ll be an element of a ‘deal’ being made when the decision is announced to help save face.

Through gritted teeth? Maybe. But that’s the way of the business world unfortunately.

Although, after the way they’ve dragged our name through the mud I hope he doesn’t back down and end it with a grey area.
 
GLBlue1995 said:
Fair. I'd pose that there's usually a window where the parties will at least consider settlement when they think a decision is imminent.

As with the APT challenges, it's always seemed to me that a settlement was preferable in that City and the EPL will be partners long after the ruling is issued. Mutual compromise is better for that long-term business relationship. If things went well for City, and they can get a palatable deal that largely exonerates them, that's hard to not strongly consider. They've done real damage to the PL and Masters through this and the APT attacks. Cost the PL a ton of money. If City could put this all behind them with a slap on the wrist, that's awfully hard to turn down.
Click to expand...
I think you make some good points, but the key difference between 115 and APT is that the former strikes at the heart of our integrity. Any form of settlement carries with it the implication that we had behaved improperly. Unless we have actually behaved improperly (something which feels increasingly remote), then I cannot see the club settling on any points whereby we are alleged to have cheated.
 
Keith Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Man City are confident they will not be treated differently to any other top-flight club going forward". Interesting language in a statement that doesn't say very much.
 
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...
No it doesn’t. Nothing like that
 
slbsn said:
They were always treated the same as other clubs on FMV and APT. As if the PL would ever accept that they haven't been treated equally historically
Click to expand...
I don’t accept that for a moment. For example what in APT rules was used to block a Chinese company from sponsoring us? Why was the Etihad sponsorship valued below a very similar deal between Arsenal and Emirates? What is the difference between an AbuDhabi company which is not related sponsoring us and US companies sponsoring US owned clubs? City clearly thought they were treated differently. See post 23371 above.
 
KS55 said:
I don’t accept that for a moment. For example what in APT rules was used to block a Chinese company from sponsoring us? Why was the Etihad sponsorship valued below a very similar deal between Arsenal and Emirates? What is the difference between an AbuDhabi company which is not related sponsoring us and US companies sponsoring US owned clubs?
Click to expand...
You missed the point. Read his statement carefully. He was taking the p1ss. ‘As if…’
 
slbsn said:
For UEFA accounting ALL revenue (and all relevant expenses) have to be fair value (which I have taken as FMV but perhaps that has a distinct measure).

Now checked fair value appears to be the recognised FMV definition https://documents.uefa.com/r/UEFA-C...ions-2023/J.7-Definition-of-fair-value-Online View attachment 168924
Click to expand...
Do you know how much the financial difference is between City getting the full value of the Etihad deal and what the PL would have previously allowed over the ten years?
 
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