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

[paulchapo]

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.

Having seen the standard of government employees the last few years I think they would be equally inept at regulating the league. They are also partial to a few sweeteners here and there.

On that subject, after all the wailing we would use our political affiliation with the government to sway decisions, I notice Arsenal are very quiet on the news they're giving a free box at the Emirates to our current prime minister, who just happens to support our main adversary.

 

[johnny crossan]

The APT rules ARE null and void.
That doesn't mean to say that they cannot be amended and reproduced, but like any operating document, if the document and its rules are declared unlawful, continued use of those rules and procedures is null and void, and definitely would open up a process of litigation.

Exactly so, both the current amended and the previous unamended versions were declared unlawful. There are now no APT rules and their replacement must not be discriminatory. This is a big problem for the redshirt cartel calling the shots in the PL, they only bought their way in to hobble City, Newcastle and any other threat to their income streams.

 

[Vic]

He suggested one KC said it was to do with:

"what is known as the “blue pencil test,” namely can a blue line be put through the offending sentences to fix them according to the tribunal’s decision and not fundamentally change the rules in the process. In other words, are the three points on which City won enough to invalidate the entire APT rules.

Clearly City will argue that they are. Given that these three points appear not to affect the purpose of the rules and are, according to the League, easily fixable, this may be an uphill battle. Some of the lawyers we spoke to disagreed with City’s view. Others didn’t offer an opinion, saying that it will be a judgement call. This could well be a matter for a further hearing. It is likely that the tribunal will decide itself whether it or the clubs should make this call".

Even that minimises the problem for the PL. The rules are currently unlawful, therefore, say City, void, as in never existed. (See the effect of the Supreme Court saying Johnson's proroguing Parliament was unlawful meant the session continued.)

Can the PL now come up with rules that get the necessary majority? That won't be easy.

But the article maintained that it could be fixed with tweaks, as if this was a company fixing rules where the complainant were an outside body, e.g. a new entrant v. a cartel, whereas here it's a cartel within that's the problem.

 

[M23 Citizen]

Has this ruling any benefit to Everton and Notts Forest.

It depends on what the new rules end up being for shareholder loans.

If the Everton takeover goes through and their shareholder loans are paid off, they should be fine. Unless punishments are back-dated?

Forest only owe £23m in loans from their shareholders.

Arsenal owe £259m and Brighton £473m in shareholder loans.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

Hold on, is that Ali mac who used to be with us? He provided a witness statement on behalf of the Premier league?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Sneaky fucking lawyers.

Lol in fairness thats the benefit of an online publication, it can be ammended when needed.

I know it was ammended, because originally that sentence clearly stood out to me like a sore thumb when I first read it.

I guess the ammendment kind of ties into his sources who appear to have links with the PL.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

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

Try the united thread

 

[halfcenturyup]

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

Is it fair to say that, in the history of FFP, there has been no sponsorship which anyone ever said is evidently over fair market value to any material degree? I mean evidently.

I suppose the closest may have been the original Etihad contract, but that was proven to be fair in short order.

 

[M23 Citizen]

Hoisted by his own petard

I hate that look of suit jacket but with no tie and top buttons not done up.
So scruffy.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Samuel's saying it's not about profit and his glorious rag's could plough all their money back into the club.