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

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Much of the comment on the present case is ignorant and ill informed and so called reputable media outlets are as bad as the most rabid fans. The case will be decided by a tribunal nominated according to regulations laid down in the constitution of the PL NOT by the High court, and unless we have read the 165 page document compiled by City's advisers (all Liverpool fans have, of course) we don't know what City's claim(s) is/are. My belief is that City believe that the APT are discriminatory because they apply a variable principle to sponsorship deals: City's deal with and "associated" party (whatever that is deemed to be) must be subject to the FMV test but Manchester United are unlikely to be hampered by any such problems with the same or any other sponsor. What is doubly depressing is the assumption that enterprises in the Gulf will automatically act as conduits for massive sums of money to be transferred to "associated" clubs. There is no evidence at all that City have been involved in such deals and I marvel at the arrogance of the PL in assuming that commercial enterprises have nothing to do other than load money into clubs. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent. The experience of this las week or so suggests that there are far more real problems with the motivation for generous sponsorship of clubs by organisations NOT being based in the Gulf than those the PL seem to worry about.

 

[Keeper!]

Much of the comment on the present case is ignorant and ill informed and so called reputable media outlets are as bad as the most rabid fans. The case will be decided by a tribunal nominated according to regulations laid down in the constitution of the PL NOT by the High court, and unless we have read the 165 page document compiled by City's advisers (all Liverpool fans have, of course) we don't know what City's claim(s) is/are. My belief is that City believe that the APT are discriminatory because they apply a variable principle to sponsorship deals: City's deal with and "associated" party (whatever that is deemed to be) must be subject to the FMV test but Manchester United are unlikely to be hampered by any such problems with the same or any other sponsor. What is doubly depressing is the assumption that enterprises in the Gulf will automatically act as conduits for massive sums of money to be transferred to "associated" clubs. There is no evidence at all that City have been involved in such deals and I marvel at the arrogance of the PL in assuming that commercial enterprises have nothing to do other than load money into clubs. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent. The experience of this las week or so suggests that there are far more real problems with the motivation for generous sponsorship of clubs by organisations NOT being based in the Gulf than those the PL seem to worry about.

Standard Chartered: UK bank accused of helping to fund terrorists

Standard Chartered carried out billions of dollars of transactions for terrorist funders, US court papers claim.

www.bbc.com

 

[Keeper!]

Standard Chartered: UK bank accused of helping to fund terrorists

Standard Chartered carried out billions of dollars of transactions for terrorist funders, US court papers claim.

www.bbc.com

Spread and share this, the world needs to know la

 

[RayCTID]

Spread and share this, the world needs to know la

Agreed but Joe Public will have their fingers in their ears.

 

[Keeper!]

Agreed but Joe Public will have their fingers in their ears.

Only because many are unaware, the dipper media is very powerful post Hillsborough and independent media very wary of a backlash.

 

[KS55]

Don’t forget this is in relation to associated or related parties to the owners. So no, any US company can sponsor a US owned club unless they are owned by the same people. It’s more complicated in the Gulf as the state has huge ownership and influence over most large companies. The rules just don’t deal with this hence the attempts to shoehorn something potentially illegal in place.

The price of football podcast talked ( at 3min 2 secs in ) about how the PL introduced a temporary ban on sponsorship from same countries as the owner when Newcastle were acquired and then replaced it shortly after by the 2021 rules that are in place until the new rules that city are challenging.

I presume one of city’s issues is the speed to change something mid season only when it is a gulf state owner and not, say, Everton.

Your statement which ends “unless they are owned by the same people” is plain wrong.
IAS24 which UEFA use is about related companies. That is defined in the standard. It includes ownership and major influence, fine. But the new PL rule goes well beyond that and is about ‘associated companies’ What exactly this means is unclear because the drafting of the rule is opaque and convoluted. But common ownership is not necessary to be caught by the rule. Some interpretations of the rule suggest that merely being from the same country is enough to be caught. If the PL has called our Etihad sponsorship ‘associated’, it will be interesting to see their reasoning, as City has no director, executive etc etc on the Etihad board and Etihad has none on our board. So why is it associated?
(We do not actually know if the PL has made this ruling, but it’s a good guess.)
That’s the rub.

 

[Sibierskii]

Banging the same. old. drum.

 

[RayCTID]

Only because many are unaware, the dipper media is very powerful post Hillsborough and independent media very wary of a backlash.

True but they are still too far gone to change their opinions.

 

[KS55]

Much of the comment on the present case is ignorant and ill informed and so called reputable media outlets are as bad as the most rabid fans. The case will be decided by a tribunal nominated according to regulations laid down in the constitution of the PL NOT by the High court, and unless we have read the 165 page document compiled by City's advisers (all Liverpool fans have, of course) we don't know what City's claim(s) is/are. My belief is that City believe that the APT are discriminatory because they apply a variable principle to sponsorship deals: City's deal with and "associated" party (whatever that is deemed to be) must be subject to the FMV test but Manchester United are unlikely to be hampered by any such problems with the same or any other sponsor. What is doubly depressing is the assumption that enterprises in the Gulf will automatically act as conduits for massive sums of money to be transferred to "associated" clubs. There is no evidence at all that City have been involved in such deals and I marvel at the arrogance of the PL in assuming that commercial enterprises have nothing to do other than load money into clubs. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent. The experience of this las week or so suggests that there are far more real problems with the motivation for generous sponsorship of clubs by organisations NOT being based in the Gulf than those the PL seem to worry about.

Double like!

 

[jitsubluedan]

Much of the comment on the present case is ignorant and ill informed and so called reputable media outlets are as bad as the most rabid fans. The case will be decided by a tribunal nominated according to regulations laid down in the constitution of the PL NOT by the High court, and unless we have read the 165 page document compiled by City's advisers (all Liverpool fans have, of course) we don't know what City's claim(s) is/are. My belief is that City believe that the APT are discriminatory because they apply a variable principle to sponsorship deals: City's deal with and "associated" party (whatever that is deemed to be) must be subject to the FMV test but Manchester United are unlikely to be hampered by any such problems with the same or any other sponsor. What is doubly depressing is the assumption that enterprises in the Gulf will automatically act as conduits for massive sums of money to be transferred to "associated" clubs. There is no evidence at all that City have been involved in such deals and I marvel at the arrogance of the PL in assuming that commercial enterprises have nothing to do other than load money into clubs. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent. The experience of this las week or so suggests that there are far more real problems with the motivation for generous sponsorship of clubs by organisations NOT being based in the Gulf than those the PL seem to worry about.

I think it could be even more sinister; if the PL veto a potential sponsorship deal City has negotiated, under the ludicrous ATP rules, what’s stopping another club e.g. yank owned (as a suggestion as a club who wouldn’t be subject to ATP scrutiny) moving in on that deal?