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

[Grassland Blue]

Oh for sure, could be as much as 200 million per season for some clubs. Given loans are evaluated on risk using a customers credit rating would clubs such as Everton be offered a loan at all in the open market?

What is the rags credit rating?
Their balloon is surely going to burst at some point.

 

[blueste41]

What is the rags credit rating?
Their balloon is surely going to burst at some point.

Credit rating doesn't affect the rags, Glazers take money out they never put it in.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Was there any amendments to timeframes to evaluating new deals as this was also flagged by the IC?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I’ve not seen anything to suggest the tribunal (or even City) expected loan interest to apply retroactively to PSR calculations.

Void, unlawful or whatever, the clubs in question acted in accordance with PL rules at the time and would probably have acted differently otherwise.

Complying with unlawfully framed rules doesn’t equate to breaking the laws of the land.

If City are pissed off, I’m thinking it’s over some other aspect of the case.

But they can’t apply unlawful restrictions on sponsorships retrospectively either. If City’s deal with Etihad is not already in place then surely they can claim millions in compensation?

If I were to summarise, I think the PL now think they are finished with this. Certain parts of the rules were unlawful, but the rest, they say, continued in place. The new rules correct the unlawful parts and so they think they can now re-assess the Etihad deal under the adjusted rule set which, as the unlawful parts didn't affect the original assessments particularly, they can come to the same conclusion that it is still overvalued. This assumes the PL's position on the old rules is confirmed by the tribunal.

Assuming that City started this whole rigmarole to get the Etihad deal through, then I think City are confident in their legal position that the rules are still null and void. In this case the Etihad deal sails through unchecked and the recently approved rules become null and void, and a whole new ruleset will have to be approved later. As a result, the club will, in the words of the great bard, have won "the greatest victory since the Winchester flower arranging team beat Harrow by 12 sore bottoms to 1!".

But why did the correspondence between the two parties get so vitriolic for a vote that is actually pretty irrelevant as I doubt it changes the tribunal's forthcoming judgment at all.

There is still a nagging question in the back of my mind about whether City may have bigger fish to fry. If they are successful in voiding the APT rules for the treatment of shareholder loans, then maybe they can challenge the lawfulness of FFP/PSR for the same reason (this could be the reason why the club seemed to have accepted, or at least didn't oppose strongly, that the APT rules were a vital part of FFP - something that always surprised me). And if FFP/PSR is null and void since inception it gives the PL an enormous headache for many reasons. Not the least of which is that FFP wouldn't have existed through 2018, and the 115 allegations would fall apart. For those saying they would still be serious allegations, consider this: without FFP, there would be no sporting advantage to the club even if all the 115 allegations were proven. They would only be administrative breaches and breaches of good faith and so would only be subject to a fine.

That would explain the aggression shown by each of the two sides, trying to protect their positions in the bigger picture.

I am reasonably sure paragraphs one and two are pretty accurate but the rest is purely speculative, of course. Please shoot it down if you think it's complete bollocks. I have no problem being told I am talking bollocks, which is just as well. It happens a lot :)

 

[Blueknows]

If the PL blocked City's sponsorship deal under an agreement that was void because the agreement was designed to affect City but not PL clubs with interest-free loans, then that would seem to give rise to a claim for damages.

And who the fuck decides the FMV ? Especially with our recent achievements our sponsorships should be above and beyond anyone elses

 

[ShakesSpeare]

My opinion in short. Individuals who run the Premier League organization from behind the scenes want to make Man City fail. They are using that organization to employ illegal means by which to constrain Man City and their owners. Then they sell those illegal means as a "smart, good and English" policy to the rest of the Premier League clubs. It is basically an ethnic, English-based cartel type a thing. And they commonly invoke racist overtones. People can think what they want about foreign ownership and foreign owners but those things are not illegal.

Given that vote it seems to be that Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest are the only clubs in the league satisfying these two conditions:

1. Want things to work in accordance to law and don't want illegal means to be used.

2. Their representatives at the Premier League level are actually representing their club's interests.

3. Their representatives at the Premier League level have guts to represent their club's interests.

So that the issue now becomes who makes the actual votes at the Premier League level on behalf of individual clubs. How is that institution organized?* Are there discussions?* Who is present?* How does voting take place?* How is information distributed?* Who controls the public relations or media for that organization?* Is it just an individual or is there an office/administration?*

* All of these are very, very important when it comes to things like corruption. Parliament is an institution with its own very visible and very precisely and clearly designed set of rules and procedures. And people are STILL greatly dissatisfied with how Parliament works. So that you can imagine just hoooooow corrupt an organization like this is and can be.

 

[give it to gordon]

And who the fuck decides the FMV ? Especially with our recent achievements our sponsorships should be above and beyond anyone elses

Yea this club has broken record after record

 

[Albeeeert]

And who the fuck decides the FMV ? Especially with our recent achievements our sponsorships should be above and beyond anyone elses

Nielsen do, and the tribunal found that they are qualified to make those decisions:

433. The evidence revealed that Nielsen has a very high profile in the field of football club sponsorship deals. Indeed, MCFC has itself instructed Nielsen to provide advice on valuation. It must also have been known to the clubs that Nielsen had a confidential proprietary database. The evidence revealed that it is called SponsorGlobe and that clubs may, by the payment of a fee, obtain access to SponsorGlobe, as MCFC apparently did.

437. We are persuaded that the system as a whole is fair. In particular the club will have received a copy of Nielsen’s report with the Board’s Provisional Determination and have had an opportunity to comment on it. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is not unfair that a club is deprived of access to, and therefore the ability to comment upon, the detail of the transactions assessed by Nielsen to be relevant and comparable.

 

[Lord Blue]

You are talking about judges here. They are a completely different animal to businessmen or politicians.You have to trust that they are not corrupt. Quirky sometimes but highly ethical.

100% agree

 

[Blueknows]

My opinion in short. Individuals who run the Premier League organization from behind the scenes want to make Man City fail. They are using that organization to employ illegal means by which to constrain Man City and their owners. Then they sell those illegal means as a "smart, good and English" policy to the rest of the Premier League clubs. It is basically an ethnic, English-based cartel type a thing. And they commonly invoke racist overtones. People can think what they want about foreign ownership and foreign owners but those things are not illegal.

Given that vote it seems to be that Manchester City, Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Nottingham Forest are the only clubs in the league satisfying these two conditions:

1. Want things to work in accordance to law and don't want illegal means to be used.

2. Their representatives at the Premier League level are actually representing their club's interests.

3. Their representatives at the Premier League level have guts to represent their club's interests.

So that the issue now becomes who makes the actual votes at the Premier League level on behalf of individual clubs. How is that institution organized?* Are there discussions?* Who is present?* How does voting take place?* How is information distributed?* Who controls the public relations or media for that organization?* Is it just an individual or is there an office/administration?*

* All of these are very, very important when it comes to things like corruption. Parliament is an institution with its own very visible and very precisely and clearly designed set of rules and procedures. And people are STILL greatly dissatisfied with how Parliament works. So that you can imagine just how corrupt an organization like this is and can be.

And yesterday's vote by 20 club reps took 32? minutes lol