Search results

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 deleted Shareholder loans now part of APT regime and need to be FMV (Post City APT addition)

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.

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.

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...

This argument has failed.

You can run such an argument. But it usually fails as it did for City in the APT case. And in the PL at least there is quite extensive detail now on how FMV is determined.

No it is pretty clear that City's case was that APT as a whole was unlawful including the original APT Rules.

As ever there is nuance. Undeniably City gained some meaningful wins from APT1 and, in all likelihood, APT2. The scale of the victory depends on how important you consider the change of "would" back to "could" and the burden being on the PL to establish that a given deal was evidently not at...

In case you haven't had enough APT explainers, Talksport captured me for an APT hostage video on the way out this morning. It is here

They had no power to do so. And without allegations of wrongdoing beyond 2018, even if City lose it does not follow the PL can impugn the Etihad contracts in other years even if perception will be of no integrity

In fairness with the APT decision plus the PL rules, we know a lot about how FMV is assessed by the PL and the process.

Sounds good but it is just a conspiracy theory. The reality is there were serious allegations re Etihad that led to 115. And there was debatable but legitimate concerns about the escalator on the largest ever British sponsorship deal. The truth is not quite as dramatic but that is my naive take.

Nobody is suggesting City lied. Read the actual words - usually carefully chosen. So if one party says something definitively it is usually true. But City have spoken in vague “expectations” and “confident now that going forward”. Somethings are PR fluff and somethings are press briefings. And...

The PL always permitted adjustment down to the PLs view of FMV. As City did with Abu Dhabi First Bank.

It is City only in this deal

I accept that in theory if APT didn't exist, City could sign an above FMV with Etihad and simply accept the adjustment from UEFA for all their tests. In fact, this is broadly UEFA's position as to what happened historically. In practice, I think City operate on the basis that everything should...

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...

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.

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

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...