Maybe the Qatar tourism one with PSG?
Perfect. I concur.The section in the ATP report which examines City's blocked sponsorship deals shows clearly that City bent over backwards to be reasonable and professional at every stage. But there are pages and pages which show relentless obstruction by the PL's Legal Advisory Group. The PL wouldn't even discuss with City how they arrived at their detailed figures about what constitutes "fair market value." The PL and Nielsen took weeks and sometimes months to reply to reasonable requests from City. The PL treated City with contempt. The Judges said the way they treated City was "unreasonable" and "unfair." The Judges are using diplomatic language.
Any reasonable lay person reading those sections of the ATP report can see what happened. The PL and its agencies acted disgracefully. Remember that while this targeted process was happening behind the scenes the PL (and certain Club Directors) were continuing to provide negative briefings to their pals in the media designed to damage City's reputation. This obstruction of our commercial activity didn't happen in isolation. It is part of an ongoing dirty tricks campaign by elements of the PL leadership, certain Club Directors, and some people in the media. As Khaldoon said it is "organisedand clear." The ATP report also shows clearly that Newcastle are now also being targeted in the same way by the PL leadership and certain Club Directors. City's lawyers say there has been discrimination against clubs with owners from the Middle East. I agree with them.
See my post yesterday
It seems to problem here is that we're arguing different definitions of what constitutes a win.
When I talk about how I do not see this as a huge victory for City, I am saying that I don't see how this fundamentally changes the rules around APT and that while some parts were judged unlawful and some procedural changes need to happen, in the grand scheme of things then these can be implemented and the rules stay around where they are.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're not talking about a win in context of what words are changed in the APT but instead are looking at the much larger picture in context of City vs the PL and the PL as a competent regulatory body?
It would be extremely hard for anyone to argue against the idea that, in those terms, we've landed another blow against the PL. We've yet again shown that they are unable to draft their own rules in accordance with the law. We've shown that in several cases they have been procedurally incompetent and unfair in applying those rules to clubs. If the fight is to show that the PL cannot regulate itself then we are the clear victors and there's very few other ways to interpret it imo. The judgment was damning in that part.
Maybe that has been the fight all along really? It was suggested that City are one of the very few clubs to want a football regulator over the PL. The PL 115 decision was released the day before the vote on a football regulator which I'm not entirely certain was a coincidence. The PL go after City to show that they can regulate and in turn we've gone after them to show that their bluster around 115 was political and they are not able to regulate? Maybe that's part of the strategy?
You're right in saying that Cliff's leaked letter can be interpreted as a team who are confident of their assertions. But it can also be viewed as a team who has one eye on the 115 case and is attempting to play their hand.
Ultimately it depends on what the aims of City really are and unfortunately we don't understand them. I would have thought that their goals align with their goals against UEFA - that is to win their arguments and continue working with them as a commercial and business partner in the future and rebuild that relationship. If along the way, we can paint a picture of the PL as a currently incompetent and possibly compromised body who are politically motivated in their decisions to try and desperately hoodwink the Government about their ability to regulate in order to continue their machinations then that certainly can't hurt the 115 case.
Either way I'm not getting carried away with this sort of stuff because I'm not sure how useful it is currently to do that. I'd prefer the PL to be under different regulation but the merits of the 115 case will not be primarily judged on whether the PL can be trusted to regulate but whether the evidence against us is substantial enough.
Even if apt vanished tomorrow, would ffp not still prevent the limitless cash injections that the PL seem to be worried about?Well yes, what a mess that was. But I was talking PL. They are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut out of fear (being kind) or by placing impossible requirements in the way (to be more realistic).
It's all so unnecessary.
Takes a big chap to admit a mistake, good on you. just listened to the 93.20 podcast with him on it discussing the APT case result, his usual measured responses but make no mistake, Stefan is very much a blue like all of us.Firstly, my apologies to @slbsn
I listened carefully today and he does defend us in a very professional manner. I think sometimes I wish he was like us all and wanting to tell them all to fuck off however I understand why he doesn't or can't.
Dianne Abbot would be a serious upgrade on that Melt!So sounds like Alison Brittan would be a seriously welcome upgrade on the current incumbent.
Takes a big chap to admit a mistake, good on you. just listened to the 93.20 podcast with him on it discussing the APT case result, his usual measured responses but make no mistake, Stefan is very much a blue like all of us.
I thought something was set aside could just be the compensation and not the amount the sponsorships can be but even then I think the two would be linked and we have seen City be gracious in victory (UEFA) before but perhaps not now or with the a Premier League. Would city want to risk doing a deal and then arguments at a later date about its value and validity ? I doubt it. Plus the rules will have to change quickly so why not wait ?My reading is the APT rules are void and will remain so until amended. Doesn’t this therefore present a window of opportunity to complete those deals?