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

[johnny crossan]

....Why did City vote in favour of excluding loans and then change their mind ...?

City were clearly setting them up for the Tribunal sting.

 

[meltonblue]

What about a majority interest, which is different to a controlling interest?

Then personally I’d allow it.

 

[meltonblue]

This from the Lawyer.
'... In other words, shareholder loans should be subject to the same rules as other APTs. Ironically, as the Premier League points out, City actually voted in favour of excluding shareholder loans in 2021'
Why did City vote in favour of excluding loans and then chang their mind and why would Arsenal vote to include them?
I don't get it.

Highly doubt arsenal would have voted to include them, where did you get that from?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

@slbsn did say on here yesterday, that like it or not, panja is connected and has good sources

Panja is toxic when it comes to City.

 

[northendenton]

The plazzers from Runcorn really over do it. They make Carragher sound quite normal.

Spitty normal,eh, bit of a stretch that tweety lol

 

[Dribble]

Because the ruling is redacted we have no idea how much the three deals, Etihad, Emirates Palace and First Abu Dhabi Bank are being revalued by the PL/Nielsen. Looks like they are saying, by implication, Etihad has always been above FMV, since day one, circa 2009. Those down graded valuations may well reappear in the 130 hearing, along with Etihad spending a few days explaining why they are exceptionally good value to them. What the Panel will do, who knows, I'd like to think the Nielsen 'analysis' will be inadmissible in the time frame 2009-2018.

But don't you think it unfair that the affected clubs don't know how FMV is calculated?

I get the PL won't want to show how, because everyone will be telling sponsors the maximum they're allowed to charge, but this goes against the very idea of the free market.

Pre-2008 City could have quoted Thomas Cook a 5 year deal at £50m per season. Thomas Cook would've probably told us to get fucked, take 2 million per season or look elsewhere. That's the free market.

However if the PL believe City could quote Etihad an exorbitant rate & Sheikh Mansour funnelled money into them to cover most of it, they'd have to prove it.

Now let's talk about ManUre's 10 year £750m deal with Chevrolet...

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

I was saying no goer to the posters viewpoint rather than the judgement. In terms of the judgement though, they found that the PL were not wrong in their FMV assessment. They set aside the decisions due to the lack of availability from us to the data used to justify it. Given that data was assessed for them to come to the judgment on the FMV decision, I’m not sure how we’ll be able to now argue them and they then be allowed.

The more likely outcome is if they are to be allowed, it’s due to them having to negate all the rules, as per the email sent last night by the club. Whether that’ll happen, we’ve just got to wait and see.

It if I remember correctly when looking earlier it states the decision as procedurally unfair, so not a ‘no goer’.

The decision will have to be taken after all information is given to City and the process will have to be crystal clear as to how and why any decision is made, so set aside.

The no goer bit is your opinion, so this time the procedure will be something completely different from before and the FMV and it’s associated figures will be open and transparent to all interested parties, again something completely different to before.

So as you correctly state in a few of your posts, let’s actually wait for the decision to be looked at again before guessing any outcome.

 

[Elbow beards]

Highly doubt arsenal would have voted to include them, where did you get that from?

Ye sorry, my mistake, just reread it, everyone but Newcastle voted to exclude them.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

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.

Can we do them for non-cooperation ;-)

 

[meltonblue]

It if I remember correctly when looking earlier it states the decision as procedurally unfair, so not a ‘no goer’.

The decision will have to be taken after all information is given to City and the process will have to be crystal clear as to how and why any decision is made, so set aside.

The no goer bit is your opinion, so this time the procedure will be something completely different from before and the FMV and it’s associated figures will be open and transparent to all interested parties, again something completely different to before.

So as you correctly state in a few of your posts, let’s actually wait for the decision to be looked at again before guessing any outcome.

Yes but bear in mind the tribunal did have access to that data (which is redacted in the judgment) which were the procedurally unfair aspects to it and came to the conclusion they did though, that’s what I’m basing my opinion on - it’s going to be hard for us to argue a counterpoint to it.

I did say it was a bit of a no goer rather than said it was an absolute.