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

[TedofChume]

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.

To be fair, I've been looking at this from the perspective of what der Spiegel have accused us of in their follow up to the Premier League charging us on 06 Feb 23.

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.

www.spiegel.de

My logic, isn't necessarily based on what's actually happened, but rather what they've said because this whole case started with what they printed and alleged, so it makes sense to me to look at that?

 

[TedofChume]

This article is illuminating:

https://archive.ph/Ezbie

 

[Rammy Blue]

View attachment 134484View attachment 134485

"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

Couldn’t get his gimp mask off in time, and he was rather sore from his “fun” with the red top bigwigs…

 

[Dribble]

To be fair, I've been looking at this from the perspective of what der Spiegel have accused us of in their follow up to the Premier League charging us on 06 Feb 23.

Manchester City's Cozy Ties to Abu Dhabi: Sponsorship Money – Paid for by the State

Since the sanctions imposed on Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, links between English football clubs and authoritarian states have been in the spotlight. Internal documents show that Manchester City has received funding from a government agency in Abu Dhabi.

www.spiegel.de

My logic, isn't necessarily based on what's actually happened, but rather what they've said because this whole case started with what they printed and alleged, so it makes sense to me to look at that?

Where Der Spiegel fucked themselves was by splicing together two emails that were sent 2 years apart, in an attempt to highlight the context they were trying to make.

HOWEVER, as you know with courts, you get caught telling porkies or tampering with evidence once, & all evidence offered is immediately tarnished too.

 

[slbsn]

It’s absolutely nuts anyone questioning the FMV of the deal, at any point in the last 14 years, given what Etihad have had out of the arrangement throughout that period.

It’s been an incredible arrangement for that airline.

In fairness, Etihad had (according to those close to the 2014 UEFA appraisal) always been appraised to be fair market value before this latest round whenever tested

 

[TedofChume]

Not inflated , just that he was paying it on behalf of Etihad. It got covered at CAS, there was no allegation of it being inflated.

Yes that's FFP, UEFA use a different system for measuring FMV to the Premier League.

City are being charged under rule E54, which is all about assessing FMV of sponsorship deals.

I understood Nielson are involved in assessing the value of City's Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship deals in the current PSR case, and that they use a different methodology.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In fairness, Etihad had (according to those close to the 2014 UEFA appraisal) always been appraised to be fair market value before this latest round whenever tested

Objectively and empirically speaking, yes, but plenty of thick cunts don’t see it that way.

 

[TedofChume]

Where Der Spiegel fucked themselves was by splicing together two emails that were sent 2 years apart, in an attempt to highlight the context they were trying to make.

HOWEVER, as you know with courts, you get caught telling porkies or tampering with evidence once, & all evidence offered is immediately tarnished too.

Absolutely, but if they had any evidence it would be in this article backing the Premier League PSR case.

 

[Vic]

I totally agree, this is Dan Roan's article on the letter City's Simon Cliff has sent out to the a Premier League and other clubs. It's nice to know confidentiality isn't important to Roan.

Man City accuse Premier League of 'misleading' clubs over tribunal verdict

Manchester City accuse the Premier League of being "misleading" over the verdict in its landmark legal case on rules over commercial deals.

www.bbc.co.uk

As usual Roan tries to hide the truth, but Cliff is spot on:

" in response to a summary of the panel’s ruling by Premier League chief executive Richard Masters.

"Regrettably, the summary is misleading and contains several inaccuracies,

"The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC's position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void,

"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.

I'm inclined to agree with Cliff, and I'm baffled that the Premier League appear to be in denial of what has actually happened.

"The Premier League has said that it is confident that it can amend the APT rules in order to make them comply with competition law."

NB - there are currently no APT rules to amend. They are void (say City, and I agree with them!)

 

[BongoBlue]

Objectively and empirically speaking, yes, but plenty of thick cunts don’t see it that way.

Bravo GDM for using the words "empirically" and "thick cunts" in the same short sentence.
Wordsmith extraordinaire. :)