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

[KS55]

It has been reported that sponsorship deals we'd negotiated had been negatively impacted by these new rules.

That was part of our claim but the precise cause of action has never been disclosed. Which rule or part thereof do City say caused the loss?
One answer is that we challenged the whole rules, citing the effect of each section separately as evidence. The redshirts nonsense about a free for all assumes that we challenged the whole lot, asking for them all to be declared anti competitive, but I don’t accept that. After all it was only the last change that triggered our action. Previously we had stated our belief that the rules were illicit but we just kept a watching brief.

 

[cheekybids]

Maybe we need a thousand sponsors each paying £999,999 ;-)

I’m thinking Etihad sponsor each seat separately rather than the stadium.

 

[Gazza]

I’m thinking Etihad sponsor each seat separately rather than the stadium.

Yes, and the sponsor's name will easily be visible during the game, or so the dippers tell us.

 

[WRicko]

Clubs have to report any transaction (other than general operating expenses) over 1 million to the PL (threshold transactions) and then the PL determines if it is an APT (which definition also includes relted party transactions, of course, as that definition is more widely writen) or "otherwise than at arm's length". If the PL makes either of these determinations, then the FMV rules start.

Iirc.

Yes but not all transactions are related party or associated party

 

[WRicko]

Non sequitur. The question was how do you know what City’s challenge was, not what was the rule? Yes it was about sponsorship rules but which? See post #6862.

City I do not know what the challenged is but the APT rule is what’s being challenged the original comment re tweet we are discussing inferred the PL would control all sponsorships they can only deal with APT and related party

 

[KS55]

City I do not know what the challenged is but the APT rule is what’s being challenged the original comment re tweet we are discussing inferred the PL would control all sponsorships they can only deal with APT and related party

It might be the APT Rule as a whole or parts of it or one part of it. We do not know which it is. It makes a massive difference.

 

[Bald fraud]

My biggest issue with this whole change is how it is presented, and the headlines derived from it.

These are portrayed as rules to 'stop owners inflating sponsorship, through using associated parties to mask money ultimately coming from the owners'. Implying, that certain clubs are already doing this. Although unrelated to the charges, odd context to set, with a big hearing coming up.

Still can’t get my head around these dickheads fighting tooth and nail to stop an owner putting their own money into a football club. Into the game. Benefiting their club the town or city the club is from. Not to mention the help other. Clubs get from transfer fees from Said club when they buy players from them. But some yanks bleeding a club dry is totally fine! Fuckin bonkers!

 

[KS55]

Still can’t get my head around these dickheads fighting tooth and nail to stop an owner putting their own money into a football club. Into the game. Benefiting their club the town or city the club is from. Not to mention the help other. Clubs get from transfer fees from Said club when they buy players from them. But some yanks bleeding a club dry is totally fine! Fuckin bonkers!

But since it is the rags being bled dry, I say carry on, get that debt as high as possible.

 

[burning blue soul]

The summary looks spot on bud (or we're both losing it), I'd love to know Burnley & Palace's thinking on the abstentions as it would have failed if either had voted against.

Edit: in fact if one had voted for and the other against it would have also failed (unless it's too early for not so deep thinking).

It wouldn't have mattered. If it was voted down the cartel would have resubmitted it at the next gathering, and keep doing it until they got their way.
It was always going to come to this. I'm glad it has, and I'm glad it is City dragging the fuckers in front of the courts.
More of this, please.

 

[burning blue soul]

I’m thinking Etihad sponsor each seat separately rather than the stadium.

Wooooaaahhh! So, like, you're sayin my arse will be parked on a seat worth a quid short of a million english pounds?

... so if I had a quid in my pocket I would be a millionaire?