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

[halfcenturyup]

Haven't the PL waved through Chelsea's sale of their hotel to an associated perty, claiming the deal was at fair market value? Is this because the APT rule is lawful according to the IC, or because the IC has ruled it unlawful and the FMV statement is a face saver?

I think I heard last year it was probably fair market value. The real problem with Chelsea's asset sales isn't the valuation, of course, or that they are "associated" party transactions, it's that the income is allowed for PSR at all. The silly cunts.

Still, convenient as you say. And maybe another indication the verdict hasn't been released yet.

 

[richards30]

I think with the time this has taken we have won our main point to be honest as the verdict would have been published faster

 

[foggy1974]

Haven't the PL waved through Chelsea's sale of their hotel to an associated perty, claiming the deal was at fair market value? Is this because the APT rule is lawful according to the IC, or because the IC has ruled it unlawful and the FMV statement is a face saver?

Isn't that the whole point, if you let the red cartel decide what is fmv then apt rules are fair game

 

[Withnail]

I think with the time this has taken we have won our main point to be honest as the verdict would have been published faster

It's been very quiet, whilst I don't think the tribunal will completely side with City, there is hope as Ziegler alluded to recently that we have been successful in some of our action.

 

[jrb]

I don't think any of us thought City would win the whole case against Masters and the PL.

But unless we're being fed incorrect, misleading, and duff snippets by Ziegler, etc, it does look like City have had some success against Masters and the PL, which is in itself encouraging.

 

[waspish]

Haven't the PL waved through Chelsea's sale of their hotel to an associated perty, claiming the deal was at fair market value? Is this because the APT rule is lawful according to the IC, or because the IC has ruled it unlawful and the FMV statement is a face saver?

Was waved through because there is no rule to stop it

 

[burning blue soul]

Just a couple of people sharing their anxieties and some trying to calm them down. Or shout them down as the case may be.

Don't be so anxious about it, mate. Try and calm down ;)

 

[Cobwebcat]

I too could be wrong, but I think the new rules state if the deal isn't FMV, you have to either give the extra money back or renegotiate the contract to the amount they say is fair

No wonder we challenged that.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

I think with the time this has taken we have won our main point to be honest as the verdict would have been published faster

I agree. If we’d lost someone from The Premier League would’ve leaked it to The Scum and Dippers (after all, these guys are selecting who runs the gaff). In turn it would have been leaked to the press and they would be jizzing themselves. The Premier League and the raggy hordes are not noted for their professional restraint are they?

 

[Cobwebcat]

The rules expect a club to amend the contract to the values determined by the PL. I really don't see how they can expect to apply that.

Me neither. The PL not only stopping clubs investing but stopping investment coming in!

What about the Companies that sponsor the PL? I bet they don’t send any of their money back.

Sheer madness I thought I’d never see.