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

He always is.
i think there's one thing that ex ante and ex post can agree on
and that's ex machina


giphy.webp
 
Don't the PL now have to prove sponsorships are not FMV, and not the club's to argue they are?

Yes, and it now has to be evidently above fmv, not just above fmv and the evidence has to be more cogent (would be over fmv instead of could be) and the normal market conditions requirement has been removed. Pretty sure it will be OK.
 
I am afraid this football regulator will be a big scam, I cannot see any UK government Labour or Tory put together a great regulatory body to regulate football. If anything our rivals be in the ear of the person in charge just as they are with Masters. Starmer already getting sweet gifts from Arsenal due to this.
Forget that mate, just wait for the conspiracies to go into overdrive if/as/when Starmer visits or meets Sheiky baby or Koolhand Khaldoon before the verdict is released

The fall out would be off the scale. I so hope it happens, just for my own personal amusement :)
 
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.

Amongst other things, including the switch on burden of proof and the removal of wording that substantially weakened the margin for error in the PL's calculations. Points that were accepted by the panel and were one of the reasons the new rules were declared unlawful. Big "win" imho.
 
My point is that IIRC, PIF aren't the sole owners of Newcastle, albeit they are the majority owners.

Why is a private venture capital consortium containing PIF OK, but not PIF itself being a part of a consortium buying a club?

The lines are extremely blurred in this respect.

You are right. There is absolutely no reason why PIF shouldn't own a football club other than them being better connected with more money than anyone else. Exactly the same way there is nothing wrong with a member of the AD royal family owning a football club other than him being better connected with more money than almost anyone else. Other clubs need to suck it up.

There are perfectly legal ways to avoid financial "abuse" without resorting to discriminatory and illegal measures.
 
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.

The rules of the fmv assessment are going to have to be changed for the "pricing" issues found unlawful by the tribunal. So the burden of proof will now be on the PL and with a clearly apparent ("evident") margin of error. Pretty sure those change the whole ball game.
 
Yes, mentioned that earlier, they’re going to get in a mess with what they do retrospectively. Highly doubt they’ll apply the loan interests, which is why I think this’ll end up back in tribunal again at some point.

If they don't it seems to me they will get in trouble with clubs who have suffered a financial loss from the unlawful rules since 2021 by, for example, not giving points deductions (and affecting table positions) for resulting FFP breaches.

Tangled webs and all that.
 
Last edited:

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.