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

According to Ziegler the panel will be issuing further findings on the case to clarify the status of the APT rules.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez
No, the PL need show it’s not FMV. The onus is now on them.
Sloppy language from me but the burden has always been on the PL on these on the “evidently not FMV” test and that doesn’t change. These were both being processed under the 2021 rules not the 2024 rules so the difference is only in respect of the access to information not the burden of proof changes.
 
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.
Important to note the City APTs in the decision were only being reviewed under the old rules not 2024 rules
 
That was the one, iirc, where the PL's KC said that removing the word evidently would increase the risk of a legal challenge, but they did it anyway. The idiots.

Here, I think;

View attachment 134418

View attachment 134419

I know Nielsen do the benchmarking but what is their main commercial purpose of business? Are they contracted purely to measure the value of services or provide advice on how the client can negotiate more?

In my experience valuers of services work for the buyer & seller. 1 will concentrate on negatives & the other will focus on positives. Is it true they are employed by the Dippers?

Edit: just googled & it says this

“Our approach to comprehensive sponsorship media valuation leverages data and insights to maximize opportunity and provide greater ROI to rights holders and brands”

Yet they’ve essentially devalued the contracts. That’s why it would be vital to have the data behind the decision.
 
Last edited:
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.
Maybe city think for then go of clubs and those shareholder loans are good for the games football clubs who have rich owners like sponsors are good for the game so clubs can good players to make the league stronger! The cartel are looking at it as it's not fair city can get these sponsors
 
According to Ziegler the panel will be issuing further findings on the case to clarify the status of the APT rules.


Interesting. More going on than we knew about. Who'd a thunk it?

Archive version: https://archive.ph/vL9FV
 

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.