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

[KS55]

The rules were introduced precisely to stop Newcastle and, as they say in their article, City and Newcastle are the only two state-owned clubs in the league .......

I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely? (Pace Kieron Maguire)
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.
Despite the proceedings being confidential, I can see no reason why City should not state their case in public, at least in general terms.

 

[Centurions]

He is back today with the view that PIF won't be letting Newcastle support City in the APT case because they will care more about sporting integrity and financial regulation. That's an original view. And bollocks. He is also blathering on still about how City can sign any contract for any amount they want if they win the case. The guy is a buffoon. But he is fucking everywhere. Just a reminder he was CEO of Everton when Mansour was sniffing around his club and they treated him so disrespectfully he eventually came to God's own. Yes sure. Listen to that arsehole.

On your second paragraph, I doubt very much City are leaking anything, it's not the owner's style. And I really can't imagine the legal teams are leaking, can you? Seriously? That leaves the PL who aren't officially leaking, I think, but who, deliberately or not, get messages out to club executives who then leak to the press if it is the right message. I would imagine the arbitrators have made it very clear to the PL that any more leaks about the process will be looked on very unfavourably. Which is why we aren't hearing any.

Anyway, Wyness = arsehole ....

I think the PL have to keep all members apprised of what's going on, so any leak would most likely be from Arsenal an unknown PL team.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely?
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.

Did City put out a background briefing paper or was it the Premier League that briefed its member clubs on City’s action ?

 

[Centurions]

Did City put out a background briefing paper or was it the Premier League that briefed its member clubs on City’s action ?

The PL had to inform them with them being joint members.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

There is a fundamental difference between the UEFA rules, which use the well-established accounting definitions to decide if they should look at FMV or not. Etihad. as an example, isn't a related party for UEFA, but it is "associated" for the PL.

The PL rules go way beyond normal accounting rules, and have been written specifically to counter sponsorship with companies in which any any family member of Mansour, or other board members, for example have a degree of influence. That is the problem with the 2021 rules iirc. The PL can interfere in almost any large sponsorship deal that has any connection to the AD government, or Mubadala or any of its investments, or with any company in which any family member of Khaldoon, for example, has influence. These are big, influential families with fingers in lots of pies. In the same way the Newcastle owners and board are. And finally, they don't just want to adjust the revenue down to FMV, they want the two "associated parties" to adjust their contracts and tell them how much is acceptable. It really is a remarkably bad set of rules.

The 2021 rules weren't welcomed by City, but they weren't too onerous. The new February rules are onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary for sporting regulation. I am not surprised the club have said enough is enough.

But to my original point, I would be surprised if, having cast doubt on their legality at the time and having taken such strong action against the PL now, the club hasn't included the 2021 implementation into account to require the PL to write the whole thing again and either scrap it or get it right this time.

All imho, of course. Could be completely wrong :)

Thanks that was helpful for me on the whole process

 

[Rory Bluelow]

The PL had to inform them with them being joint members.

That’s what I thought - I didn’t think City issued a briefing paper

 

[salfordbluetrue]

I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely? (Pace Kieron Maguire)
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.
Despite the proceedings being confidential, I can see no reason why City should not state their case in public, at least in general terms.

Once City`s owner has cleared the fit and proper owners process, surely then any view on state ownership is racism

 

[petrusha]

Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.

The point in proceedings of this nature is that you argue absolutely everything, leaving no stone unturned. We unquestionably will be basing our case on "business grounds', but that doesn't preclude us from running other arguments, too. You can take it on trust that, if that's how Lord Pannick and his colleagues are playing it, they know what they're doing (which doesn't necessarily mean they'll win).

The point is that, sometimes, the court/panel/tribunal or whatever might not be convinced to the necessary degree by the main argument alone, but what you refer to as the "more nebulous" arguments act cumulatively to push one over the line.

 

[Centurions]

I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely? (Pace Kieron Maguire)
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.
Despite the proceedings being confidential, I can see no reason why City should not state their case in public, at least in general terms.

1. No
2. Maybe
3. What makes you think they haven't passed any of them?

 

[Damocles]

On the State owned allegations - I usually ask them which state it is. Abu Dhabi or the UAE.

Most don't know there's a difference. The others are too stupid to give a coherent answer.