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

[Coatigan]

Can someone clear something up for me.

The rules are that 2/3rds of the PL must vote to approve something, so that the new rule was approved by 12 of the 18 clubs who voted (2 abstained including us)

So, why didn't we just vote against it - it would have been 12/7/1 and it would have been defeated. Job done surely??

We don't know how the club voted. Some say abstained, others say voted against. It is all guesswork.

Can someone clear something up? Are we suing the PL with this action? Or does that come later if we win the case?

Nobody knows. The papers make it sound like they are two separate things, but then a lot of what they say is their own take anyway.

 

[Kippax77]

What could the Premier league do if Saudi sponsor City and Abu Dhabi sponsor Newcastle?

Hold a late night meeting with the red tops for advice

 

[halfcenturyup]

I thought the 12-6 vote was to bring in FFP at all and the AP sponsorship rules cleared much more comfortably. Could be wrong though.

Yes, City abstained in 2021 and voted against in 2024, iirc.

Edit: Tbf, and taking into account other responses, it was reported that way but we don't know for a fact because the PL is as opaque as shit.

 

[Coatigan]

But it wouldnt have mattered if the vote rejected the change.
Suggests either City hadn't read the room right on how many would vote against it, or didn't understand the 2/3rds rule (as many of us thought it was 14 no matter what)

Depends. (Assuming the club abstained), you vote against it, might win. It just comes back with a minor tweak, and then you might lose. You refuse to legitimise it, you can then challenge it if you think it is illegal.

 

[M18CTID]

Nobody knows. The papers make it sound like they are two separate things, but then a lot of what they say is their own take anyway.

Thanks. I'm embroiled in an argument with a dickhead Arsenal fan who reckons we're suing the PL. My point to him is that that will only happen if we win this case against them so as things stand, we're not suing them for the time being.

 

[Gordyola]

Get some rat journo to leak a story and get all the rags, dippers and tarquins foaming at their mouths in their mother's box room.

Maybe the Sheikh should have words with his father in law and point out that Arsenal and FA have been discriminative against City Gulf Stares) and Emirates sponsorship should terminate at the end of the current contract?

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

I didn't think the claim here was that we were against market value, the claim here is allowing market value to be dictated by an algorithm controlled and managed by rival clubs? Am I wrong?

 

[M18CTID]

Yes, City abstained in 2021 and voted against in 2024, iirc.

Wasn't it 18-1-1 in 2021 and 12-6-2 in 2024?

 

[Coatigan]

What could the Premier league do if Saudi sponsor City and Abu Dhabi sponsor Newcastle?

Nothing. But sponsors still lose out though, and that's what City are trying to prevent.

The sponsors don't exist for the sole purpose of funding clubs, that's exactly the narrative being spun here. They want to exploit business opportunities being associated with the cluns, as much as the clubs want their investment. Swapsies, stops everyone getting the benefit of the deals.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I didn't think the claim here was that we were against market value, the claim here is allowing market value to be dictated by an algorithm controlled and managed by rival clubs? Am I wrong?

Well, we haven't seen the claim, but I would imagine the club is suggesting that APT rules are onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary and are therefore anti-competitive.

I guess they must have examples with sponsorships where the rules have led to delays and lost opportunities (it seems they are claiming damages) and they are using the whole history of FFP and how it has been implemented to show it has largely been targeted at City and, more lately, Newcastle.

Just guesswork.