I think the win for City is wider than just the legal implications. This fiasco has severely damaged the reputation of the PL. Most of the media (apart from the BBC and Telegraph) have turned their attention to the incompetence of the PL leadership. Whatever the result the wording of the Judgement and some of the evidence, especially the Newcastle leak, is damaging to Masters and his cartel pals.I was of a similar mindset yesterday, and wasn't convinced by Stefan's conclusions.
But having looked at the judgment again, I'm less certain it's as big a win as City are suggesting. Firstly, Stefan is taking the judgment at face value because the reasoning for City's court action is unknown. We can speculate and I think the timing gives a clear indication of what we were trying to achieve, but ultimately his position is to look at what we challenged and what we were successful on and I think in doing so a score draw is a fair assessment.
I'm still willing to make the assumption that it was the change in drafting following Newcastle's takeover and the impact that had on our potential sponsorships that City took issue with. I don't think it's a wild jump to make that connection, considering the timings.
So we've successfully argued that the PL's decision on our sponsorships was unlawful. A big win on the face of it. But there's no certainty those sponsorships are re-instated. It ultimately comes down to the PL providing us with comparable transaction data and their databook to justify why those sponsorships were not deemed to meet FMV and for us to have the ability to challenge their benchmarking. But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be successful in securing those sponsorships and then pursuing damages.
As for the APT rules themselves, they have to now cover shareholder loans and they also need to re-draft the rules around FMV to ensure that clubs can comment on the PL's comparable transaction data before a decision on FMV is made.
The PL might have an issue with securing a majority vote on amended rules, particularly around shareholder loans, but I'm not sure it's a significant loss for them on the amendments needed around assessing FMV. There's no doubt in my mind the PL has a cartel of clubs controlling it, but when it comes to assessing FMV the board (cross-examined in this case) were largely found to have a robust approach to making that assessment. The critical part to any success City have on this is whether the comparable transactions a) are comparable and; b) do justify rejecting our proposed sponsorships. Clearly the club do not believe that evidence will justify the decision. But we'll have to wait and see. Any "win" on this really comes down to whether or not those sponsorships are allowed in light of the evidence, and with our ability to make comment on the database.
Again it's clear the club feel that the failure to share critical evidence or allow City to comment or challenge it is more evidence of a conspiracy within the PL.
Thanks for clearing that up halfcentury.
Funny you should mention that, I was just thinking about that programme yesterday. Remember that bellend who was slagging off City when Mancini was appointed (I think he called us "grubby") and finally got his comeuppance...was it Smith? That's the 1st time I remember the media starting to become anti-City. Think he ended up getting sacked.
I’m guessing the ‘fictional’ company was the crypto/betting firm - can’t remember name - and yes that was a bit dubious, but iirc all the other major teams fell for similar as well. It’s just a typical Liverpool fan, inflating one to many, and not looking at their own dealings.I was watching the nobbins podcast on you tube yesterday and a random stupid scoucer kept posting on screen that, and I paraphrase, City are cheats because they make up fictional companies to pay their sponsorship deals. Perhaps he was thinking that Etihad was a made up company the stupid twat.
This exactly. You can't continue to enforce rules that have been found to be illegal and anti competitive and continue to allow those clubs now clearly in breach to continue to benefit.So, I was thinking last night about City's position that the whole APT rule set is nul and void until new legally compliant rules are approved by the PL shareholders, and why City are apparently dead against any quick changes to the rules.
Now, ignoring sensible arguments like this makes sense because:
The PL can't maintain unlawful rules in its handbook so those rules became immediately voided when they were found illegal;
It clearly is in no-one's interest to rush through poorly thought-out rules for a second time;
What about this?: the reason for City's position that the whole rule set being nul and void is that, if true, then there is no new assessment of the two determinations set aside by the tribunal. They can just be completed and fulfilled at their original values right now. In fact, all deals subjected to the APT rules and reduced in value as a result, by any club, can be.
Does that make any sense?
The information war is just as important as the legal battle in terms of reputation. I think we are, for probably the first time, winning the information war.Panja’s motive was to downplay the points city won on. The league is doing the same and so is stefan to a certain extent hence the backlash. We can speculate to motive.
Anyone who promotes a city victory is ostracised. Funny that.
None of that is true. Never ever been told what to say by TS, any producer, Jim White, Simon Jordan or anyone else. I dont even get their show notes.
Oh and don’t say “quote” and then not quote at all or accurately.
I stand by everything I have said on TalkSport. I’m careful what I say for exactly that reason. And it is all my objective view.
The fact you take time to write this crap is pathetic.
It was Smithy - got taken down with a copyright strike after about 8 years and millions of views!Our very own @johnny crossan recorded this for posterity in a video on his Youtube channel called "Hate Fuelled Envy". Think it might have been copyrighted or something as I can't find it now.
Quite a black and white way of looking at it. It has become public that the premier league had tried to act unlawfully, bringing in rules to hamper certain sides. Prior to the case it was just speculation, we now have had it made official. In terms of the findings and which way they ruled, it is probably irrelevant. The Prem have been shown to be incompetent and bringing in rules that don't comply with UK law. It batters their credibility. Score draw my japs eyeI was of a similar mindset yesterday, and wasn't convinced by Stefan's conclusions.
But having looked at the judgment again, I'm less certain it's as big a win as City are suggesting. Firstly, Stefan is taking the judgment at face value because the reasoning for City's court action is unknown. We can speculate and I think the timing gives a clear indication of what we were trying to achieve, but ultimately his position is to look at what we challenged and what we were successful on and I think in doing so a score draw is a fair assessment.
I'm still willing to make the assumption that it was the change in drafting following Newcastle's takeover and the impact that had on our potential sponsorships that City took issue with. I don't think it's a wild jump to make that connection, considering the timings.
So we've successfully argued that the PL's decision on our sponsorships was unlawful. A big win on the face of it. But there's no certainty those sponsorships are re-instated. It ultimately comes down to the PL providing us with comparable transaction data and their databook to justify why those sponsorships were not deemed to meet FMV and for us to have the ability to challenge their benchmarking. But that doesn't necessarily mean we'll be successful in securing those sponsorships and then pursuing damages.
As for the APT rules themselves, they have to now cover shareholder loans and they also need to re-draft the rules around FMV to ensure that clubs can comment on the PL's comparable transaction data before a decision on FMV is made.
The PL might have an issue with securing a majority vote on amended rules, particularly around shareholder loans, but I'm not sure it's a significant loss for them on the amendments needed around assessing FMV. There's no doubt in my mind the PL has a cartel of clubs controlling it, but when it comes to assessing FMV the board (cross-examined in this case) were largely found to have a robust approach to making that assessment. The critical part to any success City have on this is whether the comparable transactions a) are comparable and; b) do justify rejecting our proposed sponsorships. Clearly the club do not believe that evidence will justify the decision. But we'll have to wait and see. Any "win" on this really comes down to whether or not those sponsorships are allowed in light of the evidence, and with our ability to make comment on the database.
Again it's clear the club feel that the failure to share critical evidence or allow City to comment or challenge it is more evidence of a conspiracy within the PL.