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

[Prater70]

Who is going to investigate the league? Arsenal would be my guess -:)

They have won fuck all so can play tiddly winks with the font size.

I always thought the rags and dips drove thi agenda with spurs lagging behind but it seems the real snake is the arse. Time to chop the head off, shareholders loans repayments anyone?

what a greedy mess.

Good morning Stefan,
The second from last paragraph in that article has now been ammended from the original published version to include the phrase, "according to the league" I ageee with you its a more balanced less partial piece now.

 

[JASR]

View attachment 134432

Edit: hmm, Amazon links not allowed now?

I think you have to remove the s of https.

 

[mrbelfry]

Great post. I'm really at a loss to understand how the PL can hope to use a simple database to regulate sponsorship values.

A company that's less well known in Western Europe (or other regions) and wants to build brand awareness in those regions, will presumably be happy to pay more for that than a company with a existing presence. And if it's a B2C brand, the sponsorship will potentially have more of an impact than if it's a brand like United's last 2 sponsors, Team Viewer or Qualcomm.

I could potentially understand Team Viewer, who are primarily a B2B brand, trying to build brand awareness but what's in it for Qualcomm?

But I'm not sure I share your confidence that a government regulator could do a better job.

Isnt the point though that unrelated parties will find some kind of equilibrium and settle on a fair market value? There is no incentive for them to overpay what they feel it is worth as opposed to an associated party that may potential be used to over inflate sponsorship.

If you compare the contentious associated parties sponsorship to the overall state of sponsorships then you can weed out the ones that are over valued. I think at the tribunal the PL said they always used the highest range suggested by Nielson.

You rightly point out though that there are so many variables at play which makes the model that Nielson use quite subjective. How much weight would you give certain of those variables I imagine is up for debate. For example if Ipswich suddenly announced an associated kit sponsor for twice what Real Madrid get then it's easy to argue it's vastly over valued due to the relative standing of the two clubs in the sport. However Ipswich could counter and say they play in a league that has 10 times the global viewers of the league that Madrid play in so it's undervalued.

I imagine much of the back and forth between city and the EPL was to argue who's model was superior.

It's interesting though that Nielson even disagreed with itself at one point. A previous report prepared for City by Nielson was given less weight than the one prepared for the PL (if I'm reading and remembering the arbitration report correctly). This just highlights it's incredibly difficult

 

[Coatigan]

You may be right.

But the aggressive response from Cliff (or from the legal team through Cliff) is so unlike City it makes me think there is more to it all. Maybe a strategy of get one unlawful judgment, have all the APT rules voided, get the outstanding cases cleared and then get new, more acceptable, APT rules. The PL knows all this and started working with the club on it, but have tried to bluff their way out of it under pressure from the reds, and City are keeping them on the tribunal hook.

May all be bullshit, but came to me last night and ties up one or two loose ends. In my mind, at least :D

Think back to Khaldoon's end of season interview when he touched on this, the news of the ATP challenge already being out. He had a very 'we don't want to do this, but we feel we have to' tone about him. It felt like he was suggesting he thought they were almost saving the PL from themselves.

The statement, the follow-up, both have that undertone too. A tread lightly, but for your own sake as much as ours, so to speak.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Good morning Stefan,
The second from last paragraph in that article has now been ammended from the original published version to include the phrase, "according to the league" I ageee with you its a more balanced less partial piece now.

Sneaky fucking lawyers.

 

[Damocles]

Really? Why do you suppose the PL prevented publication of the judgment for 26 days (when City wanted it out on day one)? Could it be its controlling redshirt mafia realised their attempts to hobble their rivals by illegally preventing companies investing in them while spending billions on their own teams was unlawful?

I have no idea mate. I don't even know whether this is true because the only sources we have for this are again, sports journalists who are protecting relationships and client journalism is a real thing in football and every single one of them is into it for greater or lesser degrees. I used to have immense respect for journalists in sport and elsewhere. We're of different generations but even when I was younger, we had proper journalists who were locally connected and worked their socks off to know every nook and cranny so that they could write something that would inform the public but the economics of journalism has changed in the digital age where the revenue model is now clicking on something rather than purchasing something. Which is why their main business model now is to inflame one way or another, and the best way for them to do that is to post highly biased interpretations and stupid irrational opinions because human psychology is stupid. My respect for the new generation of that entire trade is now less than nothing entirely because I used to hold them in high esteem and they consistently fail in their primary role.

But let's presume it is true for the sake of argument; it doesn't really alter anything. I don't need convincing that the PL is beholden to what we call the redshirt mafia, that for me is an established opinion that's now starting to border on an undeniable fact. I just don't think that this specific case is the big gotcha and blow to them that others do.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The reason is because they think they are so fucking superior. :)

I swear their training must have a six month course on the topic.

I suspect it is a key element of the initial interview process :)

 

[BobKowalski]

This is the bit I don’t get (the last two paragraphs in the second link) and I suspect most don’t either.

It pains me to say it but my take was the same as the PL on this point. I was surprised to see City had interpreted it as the whole thing is null and void.

@slbsn Any ideas?

I can only think that City are seeing this as an opportunity to strike a blow rather than follow the precise guidance as the judges seem to be saying sort out the errors and the rest is OK.

My understanding is that all current and past APT rules are void because they do not include the shareholder exemption. This presumably means you need to draft fresh rules to include this exemption.

The principle of APT is not unlawful, but the rules as drafted are. The new rules cannot be drawn up on the back of a fag packet like last time. They need to be properly thought out and stress tested otherwise they will be open to fresh legal challenge.

In this context City are correct. This is not a quick fix or technical tweaks. Similarly, the procedures for implementing APT rules have to be transparent, fair and even handed going forward. This is will also take time and require more resource from the PL.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I'm choosing to ignore better informed, better qualified, more knowledgeable and eminently more sensible people than myself and continue to believe we've kicked the leagues arse.

I may end up disappointed, but I'll enjoy it while we can.

FWIW I don't think we were angling for the removal of APT. Just to make it fairer for all clubs.

With a special emphasis on us :)

Credits to Animal Farm .

 

[its a Barm]

To many clever people on here for me I'm off to the joke thread