Search results

Yes - 115 is very similar to UEFA's case. APT is not.

I suggest you read the APT1 decision. Most of the above is popular on here but isn't really what happened. City wouldn't have agreed a settlement if they didn't get something of value from agreeing it. The APT situation is nothing like UEFA vs City. Read the APT decision before misleading people.

Nobody knows

Under these rules a lot of AD businesses would be captured yes. PL would have to establish something as AP if City didn't accept they were APs.

It won't be transparent. It is confidential. The clubs have good information from various agencies anyway

Post APT1, the club already had a right to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis. The club wouldn't be able to see the Databank data - it is confidential but broadly via the experts everybody knows the broad structure and value of the global sponsorship market. The agencies all operate databases...

I think you mean we can base it on approved deals? Deals done elsewhere in the databank is one factor, yes

They would settle APT because it was the commercial thing to do and they have been offered things in the settlement that make it worthwhile. As the decision on 115 is probably not in (I haven't had a firm confirmation since the start of September - I sense they haven't had the decision but can't...

Wind blowing generally yes, but there was no reason to believe EAG would be rejected. When it was deemed too high, the reasons appear reasonable even if City could eventually find a way to rebut.

City would just have written in clear terms that deals are submitted under the re-amended rules without prejudice to our position that they are void and in the absence of any other regime to comply with. That would not have weakened their case. There is no way that the PL just paused the whole...

Yes - all laid out in the APT decision

There is no realistic basis for any club to challenge a settlement by the PL. It will be confidential by design and whether the clubs can force disclosure of it is probably dependent on City waiving the right. This is all noise and whatsapping the various journalists they know. Happens all the...

I doubt the deal has changed but we know from the APT decision this: The deal was structured with a % escalator and then a further escalator in years x to y (say 5-10) of a further % to the value of certain IP rights.

I don't agree with that. The clubs have nowhere to go if the PL approves a deal under their rules. Simply no valid basis for a re-review or Rule X case.

You don't commence arbitration over night and City didn't - it was all well flagged over many months. The whole build up and driver of the case was the Amended Rules. There is no possibility they were expecting a short review period for the largest, most complex sponsorship deal in PL history...

Don’t agree with much of that except the last sentence. It is beyond conjecture. The trigger of the action was very clearly the then proposed Amended Rules not the rejection of EAG. EAG was not deemed in excess of FMV until THREE MONTHS AFTER the arbitration was commenced. On 24 January 2024...

Why would they pause everything? The best thing to do was to get the approval with a convincing argument and leave themselves hostage to fortune waiting until the final determination of APT2 which could have take months from here and well into the 25/26 contract year. You could be right but I'd...

Any knowing move like this would just be a breach of the PL rules by the PL.Whether in a settlement or not, they would just be exposed to a claim from other clubs. I think it is highly unlikely to have happened like that. The most obvious thing that happened is City (as they envisaged being...

Firstly, I said nobody could realistically be retrospectively punished for a PSR breach caused by costs that were excluded by the rules at the time ie it would be punishing a club where they did nothing wrong per the rules at the time - that would be ridiculous. There could be no better...

There might be a post balance sheet event note about it (and then a fuller explanation in the following year) but I am not sure what the materiality measure is for that. It is hard to see how a significant payment of costs or compensation to MCFC would not get a mention in either the PL or...