Search results

It has only ever been assessed under the old APT rules. The Amended rules came in after City applied for approval.

We know the issues the Tribunal were asked to decide. Neither party thought to ask if the answer is "yes" in respect of certain elements does that mean the whole set of rules are null and void until the follow up questions. "1. Do the FMV Rules (and/or the Amended FMV Rules) have the object of...

If they were connected or dependent, it simply would not have played out like this. City would have introduced those relevant points in the main case as defence. You are thinking far too much about the mention of related parties in the press release. We know for sure what the core of the...

I don't agree with this at all. Nothing in the APT case could save City if they had faked their biggest contracts for a decade and then lied repeatedly to the outside world including auditors and multiple other parties. We always knew why the APTs were introduced (for Newcastle and because...

Doesn't need to be knowledge of an established/proven fraud. It is for the claimant to commence its work once it has sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to issue proceedings. Pretty sure the latest date is around Der Speigel for these allegations (although obviously...

Because they have been on notice of that potential fraud since Der Speigel - 6 years ago

I see no reason why it would only be those four. Suspect those 4 have so far had one barrister which is where the story is from but that wouldn't necessarily mean that was the limit. Until we know what the judgment says, no club would rule out legal action and so therefore would need to rule it...

Not ideal. Every fucking thumbnail is deliberately terrible I think. Thats my excuse anyway

They could allege the breach and set out their loss based on that breach. Of course, in due course they would have to prove their case that the breaches occured, on causation and on loss. But the claim itself is viable and capable of being pleaded.

I did cover this topic last week on Talksport around here

Would, potentially, force the other party to commence Rule X proceedings which is costly, a distraction and a pain because it would run in parallel to the case. Hence I think City would have had to accept that other clubs would potentially have claims if there was a finding against them.

Yes - in fairness it is detailed in the article too. Other clubs can either ask the IC for compensation (or the IC can award unilaterally) or go to Rule X arbitration. I doubt only these teams have written to City on this and it is more than a reservation of rights (which wouldn't suffice in all...

That was a revised times piece. Lawton with time stamp I had the 2 side by side and tweeted them at 2.17.

Not really right. One is a kit deal and one is a sponsorship- not the same commercial terms, rights or inventory. £100m a year for a kit deal sounds about right over 14 years with growth in latter years built in (United get £90m from Adidas). City’s Etihad deal proposed probably hit close to...

Matt Lawton (Times) and Mike Keegan had the story and the document at precisely the same time

Exactly, KS55. Exactly. And Playboy, of course, is a tired brand. And is there any chance we could vary the ages up to maybe 25. Some 21 year olds are often slightly immature so the analysis of the latest of set of accounts/rules can be sometimes a little overly simplistic.

I know my facts and realism are not appreciated at times like this but to note: The Etihad deal is already very big; The issue on FMV was on a couple of esoteric points but, in particular, the compound annual growth rates used for the later seasons. Adjusting those rates can very materially...

Not quite. The deal was not proposed to the PL until November 2023 and substantively considered through the second half of the year before a final determination on 25 April 2024. So most of those things were included in the justifications. I was merely making the point that the rules under...

It is hard to imagine anything as incomparable as Margot Robbie to the replacement of "would" with "could" (or the other way round) in a set of Associated Party Rules. You should worry about anyone that does get giddy over the PL rule changes ;-)

Mail is now updated with specific reference to “evidently” … Premier League summons clubs for crunch meeting regarding APT rules...