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

[dadnlad]

That’s what I thought.
Didn’t CAS say we weren't related and also that it was FMV or am I getting that wrong.

there not arguing at present about FMV but how money was paid and by whom

 

[waspish]

It hasn't previously been regarded as 'related', but isn't the concern from City that it now potentially becomes 'associated', under the amendment...?

That's my thinking and why city are challenging the new rule

 

[its a Barm]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

That’s what I thought.
Didn’t CAS say we weren't related and also that it was FMV or am I getting that wrong.

Yes but that was under UefA rules who are still using IAS 24 to identify RPT's not the new bullshit rules installed by the Premier League of APT's with associated underbiddder requirements and City having to proove that the deal is FMV.

 

[mattcity5]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

Nothing new, hope you're well.

 

[kaz7]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

Nothing leaked out as yet , all we know is it started monday for two weeks

 

[its a Barm]

Nothing new, hope you're well.

Thanks, new hip.

 

[Coatigan]

The thing that gets me about these APT rules (along with the definition and the club's requirement to prove FMV, which are both on shaky ground, I would imagine) is that the PL don't just want to adjust the income if they think it is overstated (which is already fraught with difficulty), they want the club and the sponsor to alter the terms of the sponsorship contract or cancel it(!).

I can't imagine it's legal for a regulatory body to tell two independent companies which commercial contracts they can enter into, and on what terms. I find it hard to believe any tribunal will allow a third party to do that?

I may be wrong, of course, but surely not?

Whether they are legal or not, or rather against competition law (the arbitrators will decide), they certainly don't appear within the spirit of competition law. And are arguably prejudicial by default. Because the starting point is, that the deals are designed to circumnavigate regulations.

If the default position is that owners would try inflate deals and that needs regulated, then legal or not, the rule is inherently biased to certain clubs.



To me It would be a bit like saying players from certain countries need to submit upfront doping tests, the rest it is periodic random selection. I.e it almost presumes they are starting off with intent to gain an advantage while the rest are not.

 

[Keeper!]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

Relegated to the Northern Counties, a result.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Been in hospital for 2 days not seen or heard anything obviously, do we have and good new to report

Played some good stuff, created some good chances, look a bit vulnerable on the counter.