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

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...
Sure, but APT and FMV were designed by our rivals to target our deals – and that’s exactly what they did, and failed. It would be interesting to know what happened to the other AD deals they blocked.
 
I shouldn't come on here. I thought we'd done ok but now I'm not fucking sure
 
Keith Moon said:
Sure, but APT and FMV were designed by our rivals to target our deals – and that’s exactly what they did, and failed. It would be interesting to know what happened to the other AD deals they blocked.
Click to expand...
No deals were blocked. Etihad was outstanding (obviously approved at some level for 24 and 25 and now seemingly for the rest of the 10 years), AD First Bank slightly adjusted and the hotel deal approved. And the first bit was not established by City in APT1.
 
Cobwebcat said:
Remember when Khaldoon was supposedly overheard saying he would rather employ the best lawyers in the World to tie the PL up for years rather than give in?

I think that’s what we have been doing and, to get us to stop, the PL have given City something worth taking.

We don’t know what it is but our usual sources are spelling it out. That’s all we are getting.
Click to expand...

He never said that about the PL.
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
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?
Click to expand...
We don't know but it can mount up quickly because of compounding - could be £200m over 10 years easily). Also it doesnt work like that. They don't compare with what they allowed 10 years ago - they look at current FMV.
 
chaddblue said:
See neither the BBC or Sky can bring themselves to even put forward the slightest suggestion that this is a positive outcome for City
Click to expand...

It is how the statement is framed.

Whatever was or wasn't agreed behid the scenes, is pute conjecture.

The BBC or Sky would never get involved in conjecture.

(Unless it is about our supposed guilt).
 
Am I right?

Nobody bar the people involved in negotiating the Etihad sponsorship deal know how much the Etihad sponsorship deal is worth, so any figures banded about on here or else where are just pure speculation and nothing else.
 
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? City clearly thought they were treated differently. See post 23371 above.
Click to expand...
City didn't say 23371 officially at least. Don't know what Chinese company you mean but City never mentioned one in the APT hearing. Etihad sponsorship exceed Emirates by a lot. The test is not domicile - it is whether they are Associated. In fairness, Infinite Athlete was an APT for Chelsea and had to have FMV approval too.

And there is no blocking. If the deal is rejected, the party is told what level would be accepted as FMV (as with First AD Bank).
 
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