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

[Shaggy]

I was more two footed, but yes, that’s not wide of the mark. I had a decent first touch, but I was disgracefully lazy. Decent at fives, but no good at 11 a side really.

I was ok.

Well done, myself, a goal machine at 5 a side, scored a fair few at 11 a side but ended setting up more goals than I scored, mainly due to taking corners and free kicks. Seriously really miss playing football.


Back on topic.
I hope this decision leads to MardArsenal and few others getting their comeuppance

 

[meltonblue]

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.

Nothing to do with FFP. The years we’re charged with breaching PSR, there was no reason for them to be checked for fair market value as they weren’t considered related parties. The PL have charged us for that because they’re saying they should have been considered as them.

Neilson are involved in assessing APTs.

 

[Dribble]

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

They had the "evidence". CAS heard it & threw the lot out, but yet here we are with the PL on rinse & repeat.

The PL came after us with essentially the same bollocks only because their statute of limitations was longer than UEFA's, so many of the time-barred allegations are included. If the case has been lost on the same grounds once, what makes the PL believe they'll succeed where UEFA failed?

I've long stated that the PL at best hoped to succeed where UEFA failed, but at worst they'd cause irreparable reputational damage to Manchester City Football Club. This is their only logical end game, as nothing else in this whole farce makes a blind bit of sense.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

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

Currently watching you on a talksport podcast, that was on my YouTube feed. The other guy seems a bit of a clown, going on about oil money, and incorrectly the amount we spend.

Not finished it yet but you're coming across very well in this so far

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?

 

[Leech]

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

Hard to believe Masters has led the league into this much of a mess. An absolutely core responsibility of his role is maintain harmony between the member clubs.

Every little bit of this current catastrophic nonsense is entirely avoidable. The ATP rules could simply have been written with quality thus legality the absolute priority over timeframe, whilst the 115 charges could easily have been dropped after UEFA's case failed.

The man needs to go, he's a little weakling who has neither the political nor mental capacity to stand up to the red cartel. Otherwise, this is all heading to absolute disaster for everyone.

 

[Vic]

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.

The first question to Nielson in court should be "To what extent does your business model depend on giving your client the result it wants?"

 

[Dribble]

As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?

Exactly! This explains why a Rag I had the misfortune to get into a discussion with, agreed that City are below Everton, Villa & WHU in terms of sponsorship prestige because "They're all proper clubs with storied histories & City haven't got a history, so who would want to sponsor them?". I shit you not!

 

[Chris-NCL]

As an aside, I do wonder how the ‘Market Value’ is calculated?

I can honestly see it being based on what value United, Liverpool and Arsenal can attain, with a decreasing value for all others, not taking into account current market share of MCFC after 10 years of increasing domination.

Is this why they wouldn’t show the formulae?

As a Newcastle fan, I questioned this. Say I was a millionaire, or even a billionaire and I wanted to sponsor Newcastle Inited for £50m, and the Premier League said no, but I asked to sponsor Liverpool for that amount and they said yes, surely I have the ability to take action against the Premier League.

To me, giving Newcastle £50m would be worth it. It could buy us a player to compete, or it could be the difference between winning something, and not winning it.
Giving Liverpool that money would mean the opposite, Liverpool likely get that player ahead of Newcastle, and likely go on to win something with that money.

Naturally you all as Man City fans would feel the same about sponsoring Man City.

So who is it for the Premier League to say how I can and can’t spend my money, and how 2 teams who have an equal share in the Premier League are having 2 different limits of funding sources placed on them?

Surely in competition law, there is laws preventing that, as well as the Premier Leagues ‘Everyone is equal, and has equal opportunities’ rules.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

Hard to believe Masters has led the league into this much of a mess. An absolutely core responsibility of his role is maintain harmony between the member clubs.

Every little bit of this current catastrophic nonsense is entirely avoidable. The ATP rules could simply have been written with quality thus legality the absolute priority over timeframe, whilst the 115 charges could easily have been dropped after UEFA's case failed.

The man needs to go, he's a little weakling who has neither the political nor mental capacity to stand up to the red cartel. Otherwise, this is all heading to absolute disaster for everyone.

A cynic might say this is why others turned the job down (a great job at that) and why he was appointed.