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

[chiswick blue]

It is

That's an excellent starting point, if I remember correctly our rivals and enemies were appauled at the size of the first Ethiad deal that was circa £40M pa. It's time for a further round of teerh nashing with a truly ground breaking deal that solidifies our status as one of the biggest organisations in global sport

 

[Legalamb777]

But leave his head sticking out of the sand.

Yeah.....and let Ulrika take a large, steaming shite on it;)

 

[Chris in London]

Maybe, but which barriers that blocked the Etihad deal have now been removed, and how can we be confident that we will not be treated differently from any other top-flight club going forward?

None of them.

The Etihad deal was assessed under the original rules. Those rules remain more or less in force save for the shareholder loans issue. There were multiple serious problems with the 2024 amendments which have largely fallen by the wayside but as I say that didn’t impact the Etihad assessment.

The PL have simply dropped hands on the Etihad assessment and we have dropped hands on the argument that the rules voted through in November 24 were also illegal.

If we are (or feel we are) selectively targeted we can restore the arbitration.

And no settlement between City and the PL prevents other teams (like Newcastle) from claiming the rules are unlawful.

 

[slbsn]

My question is How are the benchmarks selected and by whom? In our case it was a PL non exec director burning the midnight oil, which is questionable practice.
Keith Moon suggests that the FMV tool has been modified.
The PL seem to shift position all the time, see the hotel deal.

That isn't the process. The APT1 decision spells it out. The methodology and relevant factors are in the rulebook and remain far more extensive than when first brought in. So the rules haven't weakened in this regard for City - blue underline is compared to original 2021 rules.

 

[Kinkybyname]

@slbsn


will you be on tokespote tomorrow?

 

[manimanc]

Roan has given his 'analysis':
"BBC Sport has been told that it (the Etihad deal) would still be subjected to a fair market value assessment by the Premier League board."

But I wonder who told them this, given that in the same article they said:
"Neither the Premier League nor the club will be making any further comment about the matter," a joint statement said.

There's obviously at least one quisling in the PL!

When the media say they've been told and don't name anyone it means they are making it up.

As if that snide **** would be the only person to be told that.

Get to fuck BBC.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

What did it say? The ****'s deleted it

Hahaha what a shithouse wifebeating ****!

 

[cookster]

@slbsn


will you be on tokespote tomorrow?

Think he said 10.30

 

[slbsn]

From APT1: "The Premier League's decision in relation to two City transactions in 2023, with First Abu Dhabi Bank and Etihad Aviation group, were "reached in a procedurally unfair manner" and must be overturned, the panel ruled." Shouldn't this mean that the FADB deal is also fine now?

It means it should, if FADB are prepared to, be resubmitted or that City could have a claim for damages (which by the way City may have settled in this settlement for a payment). Etihad was effectively re-opened for approval as if it hadn't been concluded. But the damage was likely low millions on FADB at worst. And nothing stops City resubmitting a new FADB (if one is offered) now albeit on the current rules.

 

[slbsn]

That's an excellent starting point, if I remember correctly our rivals and enemies were appauled at the size of the first Ethiad deal that was circa £40M pa. It's time for a further round of teerh nashing with a truly ground breaking deal that solidifies our status as one of the biggest organisations in global sport

I think this has happened. That is what I am told anyway. It is really very big.

 

[cookster]

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.

Whats your gut on the value of the new "allowed" deal with Etihad?

 

[slbsn]

When the media say they've been told and don't name anyone it means they are making it up.

As if that snide **** would be the only person to be told that.

Get to fuck BBC.

Who do you think told them that? 100% it was the PL press office. Is obviously true and obviously from them. You don't need a name to know that.

 

[Legalamb777]

Liking this post doesn’t feel adequate

True....personally I've just shot my load over it;)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

A matter of days after Levy decides to call it a day...........

 

[Bluearmy]

Think he said 10.30

Yep

 

[manimanc]

Who do you think told them that? 100% it was the PL press office. Is obviously true and obviously from them. You don't need a name to know that.

The Premier League won't own their mistakes, they are completely clueless.

What a tinpot organisation.

 

[jrb]

I KNOW it is the biggest sponsorship in British sport. And I KNOW the approximate annual base and I KNOW the details in the APT1 decision which is unfortunately part redacted. And I KNOW the general structure of such deals and we also know what the 2013 agreement looked like because it was leaked in full (and I paid for Nick Harris' substack to download it and read it.

So not pure speculation.

Easy up mate. :-/

I was just asking in general if anyone knew the actual sponsorship deal figure as there are always lots of sponsorship deal figures banded about on here, in the media, and across social media.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

That isn't the process. The APT1 decision spells it out. The methodology and relevant factors are in the rulebook and remain far more extensive than when first brought in. So the rules haven't weakened in this regard for City - blue underline is compared to original 2021 rules.View attachment 168934View attachment 168935View attachment 168936

Keep educating us please

 

[bluemc]

I think this has happened. That is what I am told anyway. It is really very big.

Really big as in.......massive?

 

[slbsn]

None of them.

The Etihad deal was assessed under the original rules. Those rules remain more or less in force save for the shareholder loans issue. There were multiple serious problems with the 2024 amendments which have largely fallen by the wayside but as I say that didn’t impact the Etihad assessment.

The PL have simply dropped hands on the Etihad assessment and we have dropped hands on the argument that the rules voted through in November 24 were also illegal.

If we are (or feel we are) selectively targeted we can restore the arbitration.

And no settlement between City and the PL prevents other teams (like Newcastle) from claiming the rules are unlawful.

I agree with most of that but I don't agree it was a drop hands. City terminate their case yes. But a) I don't think they received a drop hands on Etihad - there was no case to drop b) the PL can't simply waive the Etihad deal through in exchange for City stopping on APT2 - that would be challenged by other clubs and a direct breach of the rules c) City definitely would not have waived costs to date on APT1 and probably APT2.

I suspect City have, in any event, now convinced the PL as to an acceptable FMV escalator at the centre of the dispute.

I agree nothing blocks Newcastle from picking up the reigns but they didn't even bother to be co-claimant with City so that is unlikely unless the new CEO wants to cause a stir.