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

[Alan Harper's Tash]

or they'll need to allow them under previous rules

Yeah, guess I was meaning that through the interim ruling. Something will need to be put in place.

 

[citizen_maine]

Yeah, guess I was meaning that through the interim ruling. Something will need to be put in place.

I'm working on the theory that we wouldn't object to a return to the pre 21 rules, as none of our currently disputed sponsorship deals would require FMV decisions as they're not with related parties

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I'm working on the theory that we wouldn't object to a return to the pre 21 rules, as none of our currently disputed sponsorship deals would require FMV decisions as they're not with related parties

Yeah, that sounds plausible and would probably placate everyone enough until the tribunal can make a final ruling.

 

[slbsn]

Interesting. Does that mean that the APT panel/PL may have to implement an interim ruling on APTs until Counsels are available?

If Counsels aren’t available for months, it could potentially stop new sponsorships being ratified.

I’d say it is a potential issue. Don’t think there will be an interim ruling. More likely they will they process what they can and hope there are no problem cases. Remember the vast majority of deals have been approved and most of those quite quickly. But things are up in the air.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I’d say it is a potential issue. Don’t think there will be an interim ruling. More likely they will they process what they can and hope there are no problem cases. Remember the vast majority of deals have been approved and most of those quite quickly. But things are up in the air.

Awaits Chelsea’s owners to create a new company which then sponsors their shirts for £250m.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

It doesn’t really matter if the rules are null and void or just unlawful does it? Because sponsorships still need clearance from the league and they showed with Newcastles takeover they’re more than happy to pass an emergency rule blocking new sponsors being approved until permanent rules are passed.

So on a practical level, it doesn’t change anything for City, we still need our sponsorships to hold up to every legal test and requirement, just not the extra steps that pushed it into unlawful territory.

The situation is a little different in our case, surely. The rules are not enforceable because they are unlawful and the process for evaluating FMV is unfair and unlawful and thus cannot be enforced. It seems that there is nothing to stop City taking the sponsorship deals at agreed value. If the PL agrees regulations which act retrospectively on these deals they will not presumably be lawful unless they also act retrospectively on owner loans at very low interest. And the process would have to be squeaky clean.

 

[sir baconface]

Think nothing of it. :)

Haha. I didn’t!

 

[manimanc]

Haha. I didn’t!

I know mate :)

 

[Brendan110_0]

or they'll need to allow them under previous rules

You roll back to older legal rules.

 

[flb]

It doesn’t really matter if the rules are null and void or just unlawful does it? Because sponsorships still need clearance from the league and they showed with Newcastles takeover they’re more than happy to pass an emergency rule blocking new sponsors being approved until permanent rules are passed.

So on a practical level, it doesn’t change anything for City, we still need our sponsorships to hold up to every legal test and requirement, just not the extra steps that pushed it into unlawful territory.

So to be clear , we will get the new (on hold ) sponsorships passed , and we won’t stamp our feet for retrospective interest charges being applied to our detractors on historical shareholder loans , or are we really going for the jugular ? Are we meeting our enemies half way , as in you can’t have your cake and eat it so to speak ?