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?
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.Interesting. More going on than we knew about. Who'd a thunk it?
Archive version: https://archive.ph/vL9FV
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.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.
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.Cliff disagrees and I’d dare say Cliff had a better understanding and reputation than Stefan.
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 blockedDoes 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.
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.
This article is a misunderstanding of what City have written. It appears there will be a further hearingInteresting. 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.
Thanks for that observation. Little wonder the PL wants diversions by its usual distortion of factual results.Having ploughed through all 175 pages I think the worst element of this whole saga is the contempt shown to City over the sponsorship deals at First Abu Dhabi Bank, Emirates Palace, and Etihad. If you read the incredible volume of correspondence it is clear that the PL and their financial people dragged their feet and put obstacle after obstacle in City's way. The Etihad deal was dragged out for almost 12 months. The PL told City it was "above market value" but refused to discuss how they arrived at their figures. City were told they couldnt see the comparison with other deals on the database.
The Judges slammed this despicable behaviour. These three delayed deals have probably cost City tens of millions of pounds. The PL didn't respond to letters and emails from City repeatedly. This was just pure obstruction driven by bad faith. No wonder City sued them. Just think about it. Three firms who want to invest in a business in North West England are obstructed at every opportunity. A total disgrace. No one has reported on this properly. There are pages and pages of the PL and its financial people just taking the piss out of City. It's in the link below starting at section 441.