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

waspish said:
So for someone who know not much! What difference now are the apt to the original one that Man City wasn’t happy with? Just to understand why they are happy now and reading between the lines of what you believe we have got nothing much for it.
Click to expand...
Stefan rarely comes out and says anything is a result for City. It might be to not look like he is biased or swings too far in our favour. This happened after APT1 where he called it a score draw LOL. If this wasn't a win for City then they wouldn't have backed down. We have thrown our weight about and made the prem look silly, publicly, on more than one occasion now. Most media outlets are reporting it as a success for City.
 
Coatigan said:
If that were the case, would they not need to put the rules back to the other 19 clubs?

Imagine if we were one of the other clubs, and this same scenario happened with one of the top 6.

The same posters pounding their chests would be screaming it stinks and corruption.
Click to expand...
This is what I can't get my head around. City were challenging the PL's implementation of the rules that were voted for by it's members. Now they're not so something has changed. Wouldn't the other members need to be informed about the PL changing how the rules affects one of it's members?
 
slbsn said:
All of the above was basically dismissed in APT1. As for shareholder loans, it wasn’t clear it was unlawful until the judgment and City’s position changed - it was a tactical instrument.

The statement is meaningless PR and City did not suggest in the hearing or in writing in submissions that they had been prejudiced specifically in the review of transactions. So it wasn’t even a runable argument. The suggestion regarding gulf states was rejected too.

I understand this place is a City forum but surely there is room for grown up, objective discussion of these issues. The ship has sailed on these arguments never more so with the formal settlement and City’s acceptance of the rules as they are.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the statement is meaningless PR, at least not the part about the Etihad deal. City’s goal with these legal proceedings has been to get the entire Etihad deal approved as FMV; the rest is more or less irrelevant — scattershot litigation tactics. So if, in the end, they managed to push through the new Etihad agreement, they have won, and that is what they want to communicate.
 
Gingers Dad said:
This is what I can't get my head around. City were challenging the PL's implementation of the rules that were voted for by it's members. Now they're not so something has changed. Wouldn't the other members need to be informed about the PL changing how the rules affects one of it's members?
Click to expand...
It’s not a rule change, the PL has no power to unilaterally change the rules.

Whatever they have conceded, it has to be something within their gift.

Remember, this hearing was basically a free hit for City. The PL have to have offered City something worth having or City wouldn’t have settled.
 
Chris in London said:
The most interesting thing about the “assurance” is the fact that someone said it at all. Unless Mike Keegan simply made it up, whoever was speaking to him at City said that. We both know that whatever preceded that, it wasn’t an acknowledgment from the Premier League that City had been singled out.

The comment from the club, however, seems to suggest the club feels it has been.
Click to expand...
I accept City do feel that way. And agree with you on the rest. Although I think it is 100% ignorable as a PR line.
 
Chris in London said:
It’s not a rule change, the PL has no power to unilaterally change the rules.

Whatever they have conceded, it has to be something within their gift.

Remember, this hearing was basically a free hit for City. The PL have to have offered City something worth having or City wouldn’t have settled.
Click to expand...
careful chris you'll be noted as being to pro city or not grown up enough or knowledgeable enough to discuss the subject and be talked down to accordingly by those in the know *rolls eyes, if you carry on with that kind of reasoning.
 
Paladin said:
I assume the PL agreed to this being released in the statement, probably with the additional statement that no further comment will be made. This in itself suggests that City had the upper hand in negotiations, and sounds like an admission from the PL that they have been found to have acted unfairly towards us. Not really a good look for the PL if the details end up in the public domain.
Click to expand...
And not a good look for those clubs that were not part of the anti City campaign.
There is much not publicised by City that PL would prefer to be kept secret.
 
Keith Moon said:
I don’t think the statement is meaningless PR, at least not the part about the Etihad deal. City’s goal with these legal proceedings has been to get the entire Etihad deal approved as FMV; the rest is more or less irrelevant — scattershot litigation tactics. So if, in the end, they managed to push through the new Etihad agreement, they have won, and that is what they want to communicate.
Click to expand...
If I had to guess they had it approved at a level they were happy with before they agreed a settlement not because of it.
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
Haha, don’t agree the worlds against city and you’re therefor not a blue. Don’t recall speaking favourable of Spurs? I believe city have had the rough end of the stick from refs at times. Just like every club. The original post I quoted was someone claiming we are shafted every week. Simply not true and it’s what fans of every club thinks when they leave a stadium. If you genuinely believe that city, and city only are targeted by refs then there isn’t much more I can say, I’ll have to leave you and your tin foil hat in peace.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned leaving a stadium and I have no idea what you think when you leave Anfield. What I think is interesting is that you never consider examples ie evidence but deal with old chestnuts such as "everybody thinks ...", "we all know ...". Just consider many of the actual examples posters have confronted you with, and think about them if you can.
 
Chris in London said:
It’s not a rule change, the PL has no power to unilaterally change the rules.

Whatever they have conceded, it has to be something within their gift.

Remember, this hearing was basically a free hit for City. The PL have to have offered City something worth having or City wouldn’t have settled.
Click to expand...
…and it’s that “something” that’s driving all the speculation and confusion. Everyone is dying to know especially as the statement gave no clue. We either trust the usual journalist sources like Mike Keegan (who was very quick to issue his piece) or accept there is a chance we will never know and trust City to do what is best for the club.
 
waspish said:
So for someone who know not much! What difference now are the apt to the original one that Man City wasn’t happy with? Just to understand why they are happy now and reading between the lines of what you believe we have got nothing much for it.
Click to expand...
FMV is a could test, not a would test - too boring to explain (Feb 2024 change deleted)
The burden is no longer on the club to prove FMV (Feb 2024 change deleted1757491889456.png
Shareholder loans now part of APT regime and need to be FMV (Post City APT addition)
 
Gingers Dad said:
This is what I can't get my head around. City were challenging the PL's implementation of the rules that were voted for by it's members. Now they're not so something has changed. Wouldn't the other members need to be informed about the PL changing how the rules affects one of it's members?
Click to expand...

Unless it really is as simple as, there will be no changes because City have accepted the rules.

More or less as that joint two sentence statement claims.
 
Coatigan said:
Unless it really is as simple as, there will be no changes because City have accepted the rules.

More or less as that joint two sentence statement claims.
Click to expand...
After everything the club has done in terms of legal action over the last few years - I doubt City have simply “accepted the rules”. They have been given an incentive to do so that’s very much in their interests
 
The real game changer for me was the 10 year deal we have recently signed with Puma for £1bn. The Premier League, in its fair market evaluation can hardly now say that City getting £1bn+ from Etihad over the same period is not FMV given that the Etihad brand is far more prominent / visible than the Puma brand. In my view the Puma deal has paved the way for other deals such as Etihad and the bank deal to be approved.

I don't think City wanted to actually bring the APT deck of cards tumbling down so following the Puma deal and realising they could achieve what they wanted were happy to agree a settlement that brings this matter to a close as it is viewed as objective achieved. If City have got some compensation and a large portion of legal fees paid by the PL then I am sure they think the whole action was a win win.

I suppose though we may never know the detail. And as Martin Samuel has said we haven't accepted the rules as lawful we have accepted them as valid and binding. It won't be long before these clowns make another amendment that City, should they choose to, can challenge again. One thing the the PL should know by now is that City have the stomach for a legal battle.

Of course I could have misread all of this
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
Stefan rarely comes out and says anything is a result for City. It might be to not look like he is biased or swings too far in our favour. This happened after APT1 where he called it a score draw LOL. If this wasn't a win for City then they wouldn't have backed down. We have thrown our weight about and made the prem look silly, publicly, on more than one occasion now. Most media outlets are reporting it as a success for City.
Click to expand...
If you cant see that my initial appraisal of a score draw/narrow win for City was justified all along, I can't help you. City have got certain concessions in the rules but there is a very heavy APT regime that is only very subtly more favourable in 2025 compared to 2024. The optics are useful and forced the PL to settle APT2 to avoid risk but most fans of other clubs have no idea if City won or lost the whole APT chapter.

Obviously, I can't see the connection with 115 that everyone on here claims so perhaps I am missing something very important. Nobody has articulated in any convincing way to me but they could turn out to be correct.
 
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