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

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

I think you're dead right.

The whole PSR case against City hangs entirely on Allegation 1 - that City inflated sponsorship deals with Associated Parties (ie Etisalat & Etihad) to being above FMV.

Ididnt think they hung on over inflated but that the owner was paying his own money through them in the back door (disguised equity) ? the FMV wasnt questioned?

i could have that wrong though, so many overlapping issues in the 3-4 cases so far. @Prestwich_Blue help?

 

[meltonblue]

Ididnt think they hung on over inflated but that the owner was paying his own money through them in the back door (disguised equity) ? the FMV wasnt questioned?

i could have that wrong though, so many overlapping issues in the 3-4 cases so far. @Prestwich_Blue help?

Correct.

 

[ganganvince]

Another Martin Samuel piece from yesterday, long read but a good read.

’Tis but a scratch – Premier League are like Python’s Black Knight

Need help understanding the claims and counter-claims over the Manchester City verdict? Then look no further than ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ …

www.thetimes.com

Has he knicked that comparison off here?

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

Correct.

Ta, i get confused, so many run with over inflation as the easy headline.

 

[mancity dan]

Not sure if this has been posted. Keith Wyness

 

[Dribble]

"Masters’ no-show, at a high level shindig with all-important broadcasters who pay billions into the competition’s coffers, will have been a big call. Sky are the main players in a £6.7bn deal along with TNT and the BBC, while NBC will show matches in the vital US market until 2028, which will mark a 15-year partnership. A party of top NBC bosses are in the UK for a week of planning meetings.

Masters will no doubt have spent the time preparing for the crunch, hastily-arranged summit which will take place next Thursday - and could bring face-to-face City’s legal counsel, Simon Cliff, with those who he lambasted in a blistering email on Monday night."

Oh dear... Oh deary deary me... :-)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...ers-broadcast-meeting-civil-war-Man-City.html

 

[TedofChume]

Ididnt think they hung on over inflated but that the owner was paying his own money through them in the back door (disguised equity) ? the FMV wasnt questioned?

i could have that wrong though, so many overlapping issues in the 3-4 cases so far. @Prestwich_Blue help

To be honest I get confused at times as well.

I'm pretty certain it's a bit of both. The allegation is:

"In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs."

The der Spiegel stuff on this allegation is all about sponsorship being inflated because they allege SM was paying for it.

 

[lancs blue]

Ricky Holden was the only thing in the universe that turned slower than lead.

I seen quite a bit of him at Oldham. He had a lovely left foot. He was perfect for Joe Royle and that Latics team.

He was so slow that if we conceded to a fast counter attack the restart had to be delayed until Ricky was back in his own half.

 

[Robbo]

If anyone managed to catch it, the Chief Executive of Etihad was on Iain King in Sky News business hour between 4.30-5pm today?

He was asked a few questions about their involvement with City and the recent case.

King at one stage asked if Etihad would ever sponsored a different club in the Premier League, which was easily batted away.

Apologies, don't know where you would get it to post on here.

I also saw it, I think it was actually Paul Kelso rather than Ian King though, anyway they pressed the CE to try and get something on City but you’re right he batted things away brilliantly. He even said, when slyly pressed, that the Etihad deal with City was on fair market terms, something I’m sure Sky Sports will report, but don’t hold your breath

 

[Dribble]

To be honest I get confused at times as well.

I'm pretty certain it's a bit of both. The allegation is:

"In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs."

The der Spiegel stuff on this allegation is all about sponsorship being inflated because they allege SM was paying for it.

My understanding is that City needed an advance on the sponsorship monies, to help comply with FFP, so it was mooted if HRH would be willing to put the cash in upfront from his own pocket & be directly remunerated by the sponsors when the installments were due.

This was the "out of context" element of our explanation regarding UEFA's 2013 allegations.