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

[johnny crossan]

a) it is irrelevant what I think so no idea why you are still banging on about it
b) it is also irrelevant what Samuel thinks
c) at least I have read the judgment - Samuel could not have when he wrote his OTT piece and went on the podcast

City clearly gave him advanced access because his take mirrors the key points in Cliff's letter. You really think he knocked out that piece in a couple of hours? His podcast performance was brilliant btw.

 

[ganganvince]

Just noticed the remarkable similarity between this scenario and the Black Knight on Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Go and watch it with City and the PL in mind.
(Sorry - don’t know how to attach things)

 

[Vic]

Saying something is a breach of competition law IS saying they are unlawful? If something breaches a law it's unlawful?

The article didn't make that connection. It was couched as "City argued the rules were unlawful" but "The PL disagreed".

The Tribunal say the Rules are unlawful. As an article purporting to explain that, it failed.

 

[johnny crossan]

reading the judgement and it's rather depressing that they rely on "independent" valuers to make up a number about a deal. A few clubs need to get together and do some high value interclub sponsorships to really fuck up their database.

MLS use the same database apparently.

 

[meltonblue]

But weren't PIF part of a consortium? Also, PIF is an investment arm of the Saudi government, much the same as Clearlake is a private equity fund, with several private, corporate & state investors.

The days of the successful local businessman buying his local team is done. What we're seeing now is consortiums buying up clubs as an investment. What's to stop a PIF pumping gazillions into a Clearlake Capital & taking control of a football club that way?

PIF already do give a lot of money to Clearlake. Clearlake aren’t a state owned company though nor are they owned or have any controlling interest from PIF. They’re not the same at all.

I take the point to an extent though. Difference with the Newcastle deal is the direct ownership which shouldn’t have been allowed.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Your view differs from City's then. The club don't object to the PL determining FMV what they object to is not being allowed access to the benchmarking data they use to determine said FMV.

that and actually being allowed to respond to it as well.

The Etihad deal is so big (in terms of things sponsored) that it's unlike and other sponsorship deal so it can't be compared in the first place. Maybe City have to play the game a bit more and break the sponsorships into chunks say £20m stadium sponsored, £5m training ground sponsorship, £50m shirt sponsorship, plus the rest of the other bits. throw each one at the PL and see what happens. Nielson are just number crunchers and don't see the wood for the trees most of the time. This would spell it out for them a bit more.

 

[i kne albert davy]

Maybe all clubs should be allowed to agree on everyone’s sponsorship who the fuck do the PL think they are? What’s to stop them saying sponsorship of bog rolls at United is worth more than City, fucking scandalous

Maybe people who are installed at the top of the Premier League have a vested interest in ensuring City can't benefit from sponsorship while Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal can.

 

[Bluearmy]

Connected to whom?

Cartel

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Firstly, my apologies to @slbsn
I listened carefully today and he does defend us in a very professional manner. I think sometimes I wish he was like us all and wanting to tell them all to fuck off however I understand why he doesn't or can't.

 

[Impeccable One]

We should all buy a ticket and sit on the front row with balaclavas on..
;-)

Never mind that. Let’s make him feel welcome. Whatever mode of transport he arrived in, let’s give him an Anfield welcome !