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

[Newman Noggs]

Here you go, this video finally updated with my final ammendments hopefully it makes the point better. The more content we get out there refuting the case the better I say!

You might want to change it to Martin Samuel, not "Michael"

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Dunno what @tolmie's hairdoo has heard, but sounds intriguing nonetheless.

Not cryptic enough....needs a video.

I take it the red shits are going to throw him under the bus to distance themselves.

 

[manimanc]

We are ' frustrated losers' according to that prick of a journalist Ian Herbert. He's right up there with the haters of all things City

Ian fucking Herbert.
I've had so many run ins with this balloon.
Herbert by name, Herbert by nature.

 

[lancs blue]

Dunno what @tolmie's hairdoo has heard, but sounds intriguing nonetheless.

Probably the redshirts are tired of their puppet's incompetence.

 

[Vic]

So this particular tweet (from Stefan) relates to City's Etihad sponsorship deal which was a key part of the APT case. The crux of this issue is the PL's reliance on a Fair Market Value (FMV) assessment of City's Etihad deal produced by Nielsen which was significantly below where City has valued it. But City also relied on a Nielsen assessment (in 2021) which used substantially the same method. The PL's key decison-maker (Mai Fyfield, non-Exec Director) was aware of City's valuation from Nielsen and obtained an explanation of the differences from Nielsen.

As I understand, the Tribunal judgment covered the following:
1. They did not assess whether City's or the PL's valuation was correct. Instead they concluded that it was not unreasonable for Fyfield to rely on Nielsen's explanation of differences and arrive at her FMV decision. So this aspect of City's complaint was not upheld.

2. PL in its FMV assessment relied on a benchmarking analysis prepared by Nielsen. The Tribunal upheld City's complaint that they should have been shown this analysis and allowed to counter it and deemed this to be procedurally unfair.

3. More generally, the Tribunal opined that the concept of APT rules is not illegal but the rules as currently drafted are unlawful. In particular, they upheld City's assertion that loans from company shareholders should be included in APT assessments - in other words, Shareholders (owners, non-executive directors) are Associated Parties. This matters because at least 9 clubs receive such Shareholder loans that are at zero/low interest rates - in other words off-market rates. If you re-assessed those Shareholder loans at FMV, many of these clubs could fail PSR - which is the point Martin Samuel eloquently makes.

4,. This has given rise to a new food fight where the PL claims they can just tweak the current rules (e.g. add in Shareholder loans) whereas City state that the rules are unlawful so have to be discarded and re-done from scratch (and are threatening legal action if PL attempts to short cut things). Additionally, any changes to APT rules would need to be affirmed by at least 14 clubs. If 9 are depending on Shareholder Loans, they may well not agree.

5. On Shareholder loans, there is a separate fight over whether they are added in for future assessments (PL's stance) or whether all old deals need to be re-valued (City's stance). The latter would be especially problematic for clubs who might then retroactively fail PSR for prior years. Opening a major can of worms.

6. Tribunal also rejected City's claim that the APT rules were brought into disadvantage Gulf-owned clubs.

Anyway, that's my reading of things. Great minds of Bluemoon, please correct if I got anything wrong!

Sounds about right. I'd reinforce 4:

City state that the rules are unlawful and therefore void so have to be re-done from scratch. (They're already discarded by the Tribunal ruling.)

 

[Vic]

That may yet happen at the end of all this. The PL is basically saying the AD sponsors have been negligent in their duty to shareholders by entering into transactions at unreasonable amounts.

If that's an offence they should be hearing from Chrysler shareholders.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Did I read that stuff correctly?
Nielsen were hired by City and said the Etihad deal was fine, then they were hired by the premier league and said it was over FMV?

I think I read on here somewhere that Nielsen have a history of telling their clients what they want to hear

 

[Oldham Exile]

Agree.

I don't think it does us any favours at all to become too tribal on issues where it's clearly complex even for those with appropriate and relevant degrees and experience in the subject of sports law.

Of course we want to defend our club, but if we start piling on those who offer some balance just because balance is not what we want to hear, that's a dangerous and unnecessary path to go down.

Well said that man

 

[cheekybids]

I feel this is the reason Masters ducked out of his golf day with the PL's broadcasters.

Imagine the investment the broadcasters made being undermined & threatened by the very organisation who sold them the product? It's fucking business suicide!

Personally, if I was a TV Executive, by the 2nd hole I'd have told Masters to end the bullshit. City are the most watched team on the planet, in the most popular league, & the PL are risking killing the goose that laid the golden egg all to appease the Cartel, one of whom is down in 14th & rumoured to be looking for yet ANOTHER manager?

I've honestly never seen a business go to such lengths to kill themselves & their product. La Liga & the rest must be loving this!

These same TV companies have openly paid ex pundits & journalists to slaughter City & call us cheats. Once on the centre of the Etihad pitch in front of match going fans & watching viewers. They could & should have had the foresight to see what was going on but there been so far up the red cartels arse they watched on baying for blood.

 

[bluetonium]

Dunno what @tolmie's hairdoo has heard, but sounds intriguing nonetheless.

Masters about to be thrown under a bus by the very people that vetted and approved him for the role. He didn't represent their interests sufficiently it would seem.

I trust City are ready to act and point out that this kind of system of governance is the real reason why there is a divide and unfairness in our league, as demonstrated perfectly in real-time by the events that are about to take place.