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

[mattcity5]

The same article that states the rules are easily fixable ie tows the PL line? Do you believe they rules are easily fixable and if so why?

I've not checked, this is from memory, but didn't their comment say the rules could be easily fixed?

That's not a definite. That's a possible. I'm guessing they could be easily fixed if enough clubs agree to new rules quickly. They also might not agree though.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Perfectly plausible. My question would be…do we like that behaviour? I’m delighted that we have had a win in the APT case but I wish we didn’t continually push these AD deals to a point where they can and are being challenged.

Let’s say what you’ve suggested is true and we complete the deal(s) now. What happens if/when the rules are updated and “evidently” or something to that effect is reinstated in the rules and our deal is then deemed to be evidently above FMV?

By the time renewals come up, I imagine they would then be in the fair value ballpark.

You seem to be assuming the club is pushing the sponsors to pay more than the sponsorships are worth to them. I am not sure that is the case.

 

[OrigamiNinja]

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

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

I do hope our legal team didn’t jump the gun on what the ruling means. We are going to look like right dicks if we’ve sent an email to the other clubs and our position is in fact incorrect.

 

[Blue Maverick]

I've not checked, this is from memory, but didn't their comment say the rules could be easily fixed?

That's not a definite. That's a possible. I'm guessing they could be easily fixed if enough clubs agree to new rules quickly. They also might not agree though.

I’m thinking this as well because if what has happened to clubs in recent months and PSR etc points deduction, the red cartel may find themselves in a minority now when it comes to voting.

 

[slbsn]

Cliff disagrees and I’d dare say Cliff had a better understanding and reputation than Stefan.

There is no question that Cliff has a better understanding of the case than me. By a mile. And obviously so. Likewise, he has the benefit of 2 weeks ruminating on the judgment, hours and hours of legal advice on the matter from Pannick and the rest of the team inc Freshfields.

But as I explained yesterday, these sort of letters and bombastic positions are common in litigation. It doesn't mean City are certain on all these points. In fact, the most critical element of the letter is that City and the PL have agreed in correspondence that matters will need to go back to the Tribunal - that appears to be factual.

All of that said you are comparing apples and oranges. I was being asked my objective view as to who won what. Simon Cliff is the GC of one of the parties charged with a) implementing a new regime b) concurrently defending the club vs the most serious allegations imaginable c) portraying confidence in the club's position. He is not trying to be objective.

As for the attack on my reputation? I doubt you have any clue whatsoever on that topic.

 

[terraloon]

Does anyone know how many deals were reduced in value under the rules, and for which clubs (I can guess which won't be in the list)?

If I was a sponsor, I would probably be quite happy at paying less, so I can't see any deal that was reduced reverting to the original number. So depending on how many such deals there were the PL could be seeing some big demands for compensation.

The suggestion amongst a few Chelsea supporters is that we have a couple of sponsorship deals stuck in process linked to Clearlake’s client base whilst not quite APT you may recall that the PL blocked a significant front of shirt deal that we had negotiated with Paramount + that was blocked

 

[Bez]

I am wondering that City have also become emboldened following 3 to 4 weeks of legal proceedings regarding the alleged breaches. Maybe things are going well for City and they are smelling blood and can see that the PL are in an increasingly vulnerable position. A wild guess, but you never know.

 

[cheekybids]

I do hope our legal team didn’t jump the gun on what the ruling means. We are going to look like right dicks if we’ve sent an email to the other clubs and our position is in fact incorrect.

Cliff will have been briefed by Lord Pannick.

 

[slbsn]

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

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

This article is a misunderstanding of what City have written. It appears there will be a further hearing

I explained this yesterday here -

 

[halfcenturyup]

I do hope our legal team didn’t jump the gun on what the ruling means. We are going to look like right dicks if we’ve sent an email to the other clubs and our position is in fact incorrect.

You worry a lot. There is no way Pannick would let that letter go out unless he was sure of his position. He probably wrote it
got someone to write it :)