City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

KS55 said:
I think only Everton currently are not part of a multi club ownership set up. Many of these groups are just as rich as Mansour, at least in terms of how much you need to support clubs royally. How rich is Fenway?
Click to expand...

Plenty of clubs have been taken on the ride by the US owners. We know their ideal world is one with a spending cap with games in the US and no promotion or relegation. Allows them to spend very little but earn a fortune.

Everton are a good example. Went with the US owners on FFP thinking they'd be protected in their position in the league still as a club of significant stature. Then a decade or more later under new owners falls foul of them and looks completely fucked.

And a lot of clubs down the league think the new rules help them because they're also short sighted. The fair value and related person rules are clearly not lawful from a business perspective but it's whether, having been voted for and then introduced an arbitrator would be able to then uphold a case against them.

Whilst I think I'm chatting shit, losing this one and then winning the case on the charges would be an excellent strategy for all parties. PL gets a win, perception of that will be that we can't do what we want. We then clear ourselves of the charges and the PL gets less flak having beaten us on this case.

I just don't think the club would spend the money playing that perception game though, we clearly feel we can win this too and don't give a shit what keyboard warriors and the journalists say.
 
halfcenturyup said:
For anybody who wants to read it.


Not bad, I suppose, but still getting mixed up between associated and related and what the impacts might be if the club wins any or part of it's claims.
Click to expand...
If they mix up associated with related, they rather miss the point. As far as I can tell, City accept the UEFA rules without demur.
 
It sure looks like we are going all in now, huge couple of weeks coming up for our future and the league's future.

Lose this case and we look proper *ucked

Amazon.com: Leitee 500 Pcs Plastic Poker Chips 38 mm Interlocking Game Chips Lightweight Poker Chip Set Tokens Bingo Chips Blank Casino Counting Chips Bulk for Adults Counting Reward Card (Red) : Toys
 
Rollercoaster 24hrs - dippers terrorist financiers then us taking on the league with potentially unnamed allies and rivals, KDB talking about going to Saudi, reports of alvarez looking out this morning.

We may be many things but we're never boring!!
 
supercity88 said:
The rules we are challenging aren't the newly proposed ones. They're ones that brought in a rule on related people and fair value on sponsorship, which was specifically introduced after Newcastle's takeover. Their owners seem to prefer to play ball off the pitch for now, but I would be stunned if they weren't the club supporting us on this.

Everyone else under American ownership panicked. The media are reporting this as if those clubs are owned by paupers. It's simply the fact they don't want to have to spend more money investing in their clubs to make profit. And they don't have the business acumen to secure revenues like we could.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the club has a problem with FMV rules, even for APTs (the Athletic article suggests that is the case). But when you make a claim, you go in with all guns blazing with the recognition you probably won't get everything you want.

Don't forget we only have Sam fucking Wallace's interpretation of what City's claims are.

If I were to guess, I would say the FMV requirement for all related party transactions would be "legal", the definition of "associated parties" would be discriminatory for obvious (to us) reasons so the additional, unnecessary rules (comparative bids and sponsors' statements of commercial rationale) and the right of the PL to force adjustment to sponsorship contracts would be "illegal".

I get the club's point about the majority vote and I am happy they are raising it, as I agree with it, but it certainly isn't illegal. The nonsense of the last two years has proved it doesn't work, I think. May be a marker for later.

But what the fuck do I know? :)
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.