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

[meltonblue]

New assessment, new rules. Or, I suppose, no rules :)

Yeah but I’m not expecting a different outcome. Well, unless they don’t agree on new rules so it ends up as you say!

 

[Cobwebcat]

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.

I agree but if they are amended to correct the shareholder exemption then the rules should become lawful again whereas City are disputing that and seem to be saying it’s more than an amendment that is required (time issues aside)

Also City state “"The decision does not contain an 'endorsement' of the APT rules, nor does it state that the APT rules, as enacted, were 'necessary' in order to ensure the efficacy of the League’s financial controls."

From scan reading the findings I got the distinct impression that the decision was in favour of a lawful version of APT.

I hope I’m wrong obviously.

 

[threespires]

The very idea that a benchmarking process can look accurately into the value proposition of sponsorships to global corporations (whose evolving business models & future plans they cannot understand) is simply laughable imo. It’s like nailing smoke to a wall. Overlay Regional/Geopolitical realities onto the global growth of the EPL and many corporations will want to associate themselves with the dynamic and mega-rich Gulf States. The “evidently” approach would at least mitigate against some of the crudeness inherent in benchmarking. How can Masters and his merry band at PL HQ manage the complexity of these issues - at least Government through Regulation may have a chance of doing so. The bigger picture is there may be a few hiccups along the road but no way are City going to lose here, nor in the ongoing 115/129/130 charges. Buckle up blues.

This is the underlying issue with benchmarking. A place I worked used to be subjected to benchmarking by the two "biggest and best" benchmarking firms in our sector and it was fairly farcical, for all but the simplest elements you could drive a horse and coach through the 'science' of it. There's a saying in this space "all models are wrong, some are useful" - benchmarking works best when it's used as a strategic tool for discussion and planning between parties that are acting in good faith. Once you start trying to run contracts from it, though you initially might get a fuzzy warm feeling from the 'objectivity' you thought you'd brought to proceedings, you find it all goes to ratshit pdq. At the point when lawyers are arguing about the benchmarks it's a good indication your business relationship is f****d. .

 

[blueste41]

Even if apt vanished tomorrow, would ffp not still prevent the limitless cash injections that the PL seem to be worried about?

No, without APT rules City could receive a 1 billion pound a season sponsorship deal from Etihad and every penny of it could and would be included to meet our PSR (the PL's version of FFP) rules.
It's worth noting however that City state that all sponsorship deals past/present/future fall within FMV and they wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[Manc in London]

Employed by the same employer, as per LinkedIn

So they may have shared the same kettle or urinal?

 

[WRicko]

It’s in resting to listen to Simon Jordan as annoying and wrong as he is.

Fairly sure he has changed is mind on how much everything is open to challenge.

I agree with him that directors loans changes now undermine PSR.

Seems to have fanged his mind on the ability or need to regulate related parties he is now talking about how the Saudis own everything so how do you do any APT rules.

 

[Oldham Exile]

I am now only a 100 pages behind - more seem to get added faster than I can read.

I have spotted a trend emerging though - that more and more people are getting on @slbsn case.

Fucking hell there is no winning for the fella;-)

By time I get up to 1300 I am fully expecting discussions about Stefan as if it was a matchday thread - perhaps a few - FFS Stefan posts thrown in

 

[blueparrot]

I don't understand much about this but in my simplistic world. We said the APT rules as they stood were illegal and discriminatory,and that they had broken their own rules the judges agreed.They may not agree with many of the other things we said.
So surely that means the rules have to be re written so that they are legal and non discriminatory,and can't be used as they are until they meet those tests. Not sure we wanted much more, so that sounds like a win to me.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Steady on, that's almost justifying the Rags' deal with Chrysler!

LOL. But that's a good point as Chevrolet (who were the company that were on their shirt) withdrew from the European market during that deal, so surely that impacted the value?

And there was the issue that the guy who negotiated that deal on behalf of GM was sacked for exceeding his authority. Would the PL have taken account of that in their assessment of FMV?

And then there was the Liverpool kit deal with Warrior, who were (a) a new entrant into the football kit business, and (b) loosely connected to John Henry and FSG. Adidas said that the deal Warrior offered was well above what it was worth to them. What would the PL have made of that?

 

[Pontypool Blue]

Hoisted by his own petard