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

flb said:
He’s plopped his pants , and no doubt would have sliced his driver off every tee.
The fucking shithouse.
Click to expand...
Yep. Was ready to give an upbeat review of what the PL was going to do, ready for all the frothers to use in their positive broadcasts of the PL.

Now, shat his pants as his legal team tell him the realities of his/the PLs position.
 
Dribble said:
All Etihad had to do is point to their exponential growth since 2009, which they credit mostly to their association with Manchester City.

This alone is game, set & match to MCFC. You can't argue with facts & figures... Unless you're the Premier League!
Click to expand...
Etihad were on their knees at one point having lost a packet on poor acquisitions. So the association with City made up a great deal of lost ground for them and then they…er..took off.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The threshold for a claimant to succeed in Rule X Arbitration is essentially Wednesbury Unreasonableness. That’s a very high hurdle indeed.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what any of that means but I’m a few hours into a red wine and thank you for the music powder and I like it.

Is it good or bad? :-)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The threshold for a claimant to succeed in Rule X Arbitration is essentially Wednesbury Unreasonableness. That’s a very high hurdle indeed.
Click to expand...
It’d seem a bit farcical after all this if the PL have to reassess the Etihad deal, only to decide that it is still above FMV, particularly in the light of the Etihad CEO’s comments today. But that seems quite possible.
 
Chris-NCL said:
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.
Click to expand...
To me, there's a number of elements in assessing fair value:
  1. What is the sponsor paying?
  2. What are they proposing to get for that?
  3. Is what they're paying commensurate with what they're getting?
  4. Is it a genuine transaction?
That's pretty well the tests used by CAS.

If the sponsor pays £50m and they just get a quarter page in the programme, that would fail test 3, and probably 4 as well. If the sponsor is paying £5m and getting their name on the front of the club's shirt, that would fail test 3 if it was City or Liverpool. Ashley's arrangement at Newcastle would probably fail test 3, as he was getting far more exposure for Sports Direct than he was paying for.

On the other hand £5m to sponsor, say, Hull City wouldn't be out of place. You have to consider the exposure the sponsorship gives. City are 7 times PL champions, having won the last 4 titles in a row, a treble in the last few seasons and are one of the hottest properties in football. That's why we'd always attract a premium.

And, as @gordondaviesmoustache said earlier, you also have to consider what the sponsor gets out of it, beyond their name on the shirt. In other words, what's their return on investment? Warrior, when they blew Adidas out of the water for Liverpool's kit deal in 2012, got a high-profile entry into the football kit market. That had to be worth more to them than to the already globally-established Adidas. Ultimately they failed on distribution, so Liverpool went to Nike. But if Warrior got other high-profile deals out of the Liverpool one then it would have been well worth the premium they paid in 2012.

The point is that you can't just look at a database and say "Well united only got £50m for a shirt naming deal from a mobile phone chip manufacturer so that's the benchmark".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.