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

[Palerider]

Here is the required info, can you please give us your assessment?

Here is the required info, we think it’s unusually high, can you give us your assessment?

Can definitely get different responses depending on how the question is framed.

It's all utter madness. The Premier League seem to be arguing for Communism and Capitalism at the same time!

 

[cheekybids]

Our enemies knew our owners were far better businessmen than they were and tried to prevent our BP maturity.
The results speak for themselves and demonstrate why we are so good at football and choosing our sponsors.

They’ll also learn why Omar may well have impressed in his role at City but was never considered CEO material.

 

[dadnlad]

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!

only down side TV companies need the cartel at top to sell super sunday not a mid table battle

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Yes. Neilson is not a problem per se but having only one outside source is and club’s inability to look behind the curtain at the data behind the analysis certainly is.
Neilson are eminently reputable so differing answers to different clients is a problem for them.

yep that's correct, I use Neilson data every now and then and I always have to edit the numbers where they hadn't considered things or over/understated certain numbers. It's easy to shoot them down. Normally I just amend the numbers to better fit what I know to be the truth as I usually have actual proper data to baseline things around rather than Neilsen's estimates. For instance I get a file listing companies turnover estimates but I work for multiple companies and I know exactly what they are making so I always do a comparison of the Neilsen estimates vs actuals. The public companies are usually right (this is just basic research to get right) but the private companies are off by miles. Neislen's numbers are just guesses most of the time from various articles and reports. That's how I use and see their data anyway (ie with a giant pinch of salt).

 

[cheekybids]

It's all utter madness. The Premier League seem to be arguing for Communism and Capitalism at the same time!

US capitalism is nothing like capitalism, it’s lobbying & protectionism for the chosen few. It has nothing to do with allowing the market to dictate.

 

[ShedDweller]

I don't think the tribunal said this. They only said the PL were not wrong in relying on the evidence submitted to them.

Any reasonable regulatory body (I think the wording is something like that) would have raised a red flag when a consultant was shown to have come up with different valuations based on the same input information. Its a bit weird that the Tribunal thought this was ok.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Confidence in Nielsen is surely tarnished, as we asked them for a FMV and the PL asked them for a FMV a few years later. The PL valuation using the same methodology was much lower than the valuation we paid them to give us.

So as another poster said earlier, Nielsen will deliver whatever result their client pays for.

Also, if I have understood this correctly, when they gave the Premier League the valuation we were the reigning European champions so surely our stock would have risen. I agree that all confidence in Nielsen to act independently has gone and their services need to be dispensed with immediately. For them not to inform the Premier League that they had provided an FMV assessment to City for the same deal at a considerably higher value is shambolic to say the very least

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Any reasonable regulatory body (I think the wording is something like that) would have raised a red flag when a consultant was shown to have come up with different valuations based on the same input information. Its a bit weird that the Tribunal thought this was ok.

or the same valuation based on different input information. Both are impossible

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Yes. Neilson is not a problem per se but having only one outside source is and club’s inability to look behind the curtain at the data behind the analysis certainly is.
Neilson are eminently reputable so differing answers to different clients is a problem for them.

A single source is not intrinsically a bad thing provided that its output is of the highest quality. City definitely should’ve been given access to their data. In Stefan’s analysis of the EAG matter it is clear that Neilsen misled the assessor. That seems a more serious and fundamental issue than producing different valuations for City and subsequently the EPL.
They certainly do have a big problem in being “eminently reputable” atm.

 

[cheekybids]

This thing is moving too fast to read everything, but has anyone made the point that City's next step, after the APT rules have been found to be unlawful, and possibly null and void since inception, for soft shareholder loans, is to arbitrate the lawfulness of the whole FFP shebang for the same reason? Imagine FFP being declared unlawful and null and void since 2013. Delicious and a huge fucking mess.

Anything wrong with that idea?

Edit: This "win" on the APT case (or score draw) could maybe become a big bargaining chip.

It’s almost like they’ve given them enough rope to hang themselves.