MMA
Well-Known Member
Sometimes you've gotta tell diddy no..
He likes to party..
( Diddy being the red tops.. ;-)
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
He likes to party..
( Diddy being the red tops.. ;-)
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
My guess would be someone like Arsenal, Brighton or Everton.
reddishblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 1,334
Also, "People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks"Khaldoon said in 2019...its all now coming home to roost...
"Always look at facts. And I think people with glass homes shouldn’t be throwing rocks. I’m happy to talk to anyone as long as the conversation is about facts but once we start talking about innuendo and talking about theories I have no time for that.”
ComfySeats
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 536
MMA
Well-Known Member
We want that charity shield back as well.. cheats.
supercity88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 13,594
The issue of inflated sponsorship or sponsorship coming from our owner has been looked at by CAS. As I said, go read it if you want to comment. It's easy to find that specific discussion. They still reviewed evidence before confirming elements that were time barred so procedurally invalid and made their comments on both the evidence and procedure. Educate yourself or don't comment at all.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
They did see it, but were persuaded to ignore it. See my later post.
Gone for a Burton
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2022
- Messages
- 4,046
- Team supported
- City
Masters
Henry
Levi
Bloomburg
Kronke
+ the dangling haemeroid clubs chairmen won't be sleeping well tonight.
Neither will the racist rag turds in the media.
When we’ve successfully disproved 115 charges theyll be downing cyanide pills.
Manchester thanks you Sheikh Mansour.
DELICIOUS !!
Henry
Levi
Bloomburg
Kronke
+ the dangling haemeroid clubs chairmen won't be sleeping well tonight.
Neither will the racist rag turds in the media.
When we’ve successfully disproved 115 charges theyll be downing cyanide pills.
Manchester thanks you Sheikh Mansour.
DELICIOUS !!
this is hilaruous.
every paper, talksport and other media outlet covering it as a seismic win for city and the bbc with a vanilla no opinion telling of the facts.
fuck you Dan Roan and Phil Mcnulty
every paper, talksport and other media outlet covering it as a seismic win for city and the bbc with a vanilla no opinion telling of the facts.
fuck you Dan Roan and Phil Mcnulty
Dribble
Well-Known Member
So the long & short of it is (by my understanding) is, the PL brought in APT to stop sponsor companies associated to a clubs' owner, from agreeing inflated sponsorship deals as a way of getting money to the affected clubs through the back door. The thinking being this would unfairly distort the transfer market.
From City's viewpoint, we argued that the way APT's are judged is unlawful, because the PL adjudicate what they view as fair market value sponsorships, based on a database of previous sponsorship deals. HOWEVER, if a club disagrees with the PL's decision, they're NOT allowed access to the sponsorship database to challenge the decision.
On top of this, director loans aren't included in APT or PSR. Director loans currently held by Arsenal & others are interest free / very low interest, so City effectively argued why weren't these loans also considered to be a backdoor way of funding certain clubs. The independent review body found in our favour on these points.
It was also found that the amount of time the PL took to adjudicate against City regarding the Abu Dhabi bank & Etihad deals (2 & 3 months respectively) was unreasonably long, & found in City's favour in this respect.
City also alleged that these rules were created specifically to target owners from Gulf States, but the panel ruled in favour of the PL.
In terms of the legality of APT itself, the panel found it to have a legal basis, but with serious flaws with how it was constructed.
This is what's led to both sides claiming victory. APT remains, but must be amended so City & others can review the sponsorship database, & the PL must also include director loans in APT. OR the PL can scrap the lot & try coming at us with something else.
This is my short form understanding of the situation.
From City's viewpoint, we argued that the way APT's are judged is unlawful, because the PL adjudicate what they view as fair market value sponsorships, based on a database of previous sponsorship deals. HOWEVER, if a club disagrees with the PL's decision, they're NOT allowed access to the sponsorship database to challenge the decision.
On top of this, director loans aren't included in APT or PSR. Director loans currently held by Arsenal & others are interest free / very low interest, so City effectively argued why weren't these loans also considered to be a backdoor way of funding certain clubs. The independent review body found in our favour on these points.
It was also found that the amount of time the PL took to adjudicate against City regarding the Abu Dhabi bank & Etihad deals (2 & 3 months respectively) was unreasonably long, & found in City's favour in this respect.
City also alleged that these rules were created specifically to target owners from Gulf States, but the panel ruled in favour of the PL.
In terms of the legality of APT itself, the panel found it to have a legal basis, but with serious flaws with how it was constructed.
This is what's led to both sides claiming victory. APT remains, but must be amended so City & others can review the sponsorship database, & the PL must also include director loans in APT. OR the PL can scrap the lot & try coming at us with something else.
This is my short form understanding of the situation.