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

[Robinho's Subbuteo]

You can't have what are deemed inflated sponsorship deals to "gain an advantage" and keep the club profitable whilst providing hugely entertaining football that has helped to make the Premier League as marketable as it is today.

BUT you CAN borrow almost a billion pounds to gain an advantage whilst seemingly having little to no intention of paying much of it back any time soon - even after £1.3billion was just pumped into the club. Make 250 staff members redundant because you seemingly can't afford to pay them. Have several huge holes in your stadium roof, that would make Niagara Falls feel inadequate, because it appears you can't afford to fix it.

That's all fine?

Okay then.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

That's my view as well. There are good sporting reasons to ensure that sponsorships are not vastly overstated by companies affiliated in some way with the club, but there really is no excuse for the unnecessary, onerous and (possibly) discriminatory nature of the current rules. Especially as I can't think of a single example of sponsorship in the PL that has been so far out of kilter as to be obvious. Ever.

There are other, more reasonable ways to ensure "comparability" of sponsorships without such measures.

There is also the political dynamic. The Government are pressing ahead with independent regulation. They don't trust Masters and his pals to do the right thing. The country desperately needs external investment and many of our biggest investors, including Sheikh Mansour, are based in the Middle East. The Government are not going to allow a small group of cowboys within the PL leadership to derail investment and economic growth in the sport/leisure sector. It's probably our best industry at the moment. There will also be a strong lobby from Manchester City Council who have a lot of urban regeneration at stake.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not wishing to be pedantic, that would be any company from the UAE, particularly Abu Dhabi.

I travelled the Middle East for over 25 years, I supplied hospital equipment, and on the shelf in my office I had, amongst others, two hefty books, The Trading Families of Saudi Arabia and a smaller volume Trading Families of the UAE.

Each book explained which families operated in what sectors of the economy, their size and clout, because that's how their economies worked. The ruling family kept the oil but the other sectors of the economy, banking, construction, retail, ports and so on, were dished out to the lesser families, that way stability was maintained, everyone got a slice of the cake and it was bad for business if anyone attempted to upset the order of things, think 1930s Chicago gangsters.

So everything is associated in the UAE and everyone knows it, but everyone pretends that it's not, and importantly the Emiratis have the documents to prove that's it's not.

Power and influence don't show up on a balance sheet, but they're there nonetheless. The Premier League knows this, Liverpool, Arsenal and Utd know this, the emails expose what we all know! Except they don't and no amount of screaming and shouting is going to change that.

That's why we'll win.

I am not sure that is a reason the club will win, and I will just add that all the "royal" families inter-marry, so it will be nearly impossible to find a company in AD that isn't associated to Mansour, if not directly then by marriage.

It is no coincidence the PL rules include this:



It is absolutely clear where these rules are targeted, and just to make sure:



It really couldn't be targeted any more blatantly, so I am pretty sure there is a good case that the definition is discriminatory (and has been drawn up for the benefit of certain other clubs) and the rules themselves are unnecessary and onerous, but whether that makes the whole thing illegal under competition law, I wouldn't like to say.

It should be, imho, but is it?

 

[cheekybids]

I am pretty sure that our legal teams are brainstorming every way to get this into, first, tribunal and then, finally, the actual court system in the very unlikely (in my view, anyway) event that the panel finds in favour of the PL on the most serious charges. Yes, I know, the possibilities are extremely limited but they are earning how much an hour?

I believe the brainstorming will take hours & £ours…..

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Just to add a little semi-irrelevant spice. The investigation of City was, I believe, carried out by Bird &Bird Solrs. who acted as Liverpool’s ffp advisor.
The evidence that this whole shenanigans is not kosher is quite extensive. I hope our lawyers pile on with this and all the other factors showing the PL and the Redshirts to have acted in bad faith. That bad faith gives us the ability to appeal to the high court.

And that is why our suing of the PL is so important. the evidence is in on our 115, our regular posters have done a wonderful job, keeping the less educated, such as myself up dated, now the panel is looking at the wording, the way it is phased and understood, fair and honest, and non complaint, i think are the two that make up most of the charges. But your post shows up Procedure and Precedence, both of which seem to be `not kosher` as you put it.

 

[KS55]

That's my view as well. There are good sporting reasons to ensure that sponsorships are not vastly overstated by companies affiliated in some way with the club, but there really is no excuse for the unnecessary, onerous and (possibly) discriminatory nature of the current rules. Especially as I can't think of a single example of sponsorship in the PL that has been so far out of kilter as to be obvious. Ever.

There are other, more reasonable ways to ensure "comparability" of sponsorships without such measures.

Yep, for example having an independent regulator.!

 

[The perfect fumble]

I am not sure that is a reason the club will win, and I will just add that all the "royal" families inter-marry, so it will be nearly impossible to find a company in AD that isn't associated to Mansour, if not directly then by marriage.

It is no coincidence the PL rules include this:

View attachment 126737

It is absolutely clear where these rules are targeted, and just to make sure:

View attachment 126739

It really couldn't be targeted any more blatantly, so I am pretty sure there is a good case that the definition is discriminatory (and has been drawn up for the benefit of certain other clubs) and the rules themselves are unnecessary and onerous, but whether that makes the whole thing illegal under competition law, I wouldn't like to say.

It should be, imho, but is it?

As you say these provisions are specifically aimed at Middle East owners, where anyone of consequence is in some way related to everyone else of consequence.

The UAE is a tribal autocracy, where the seven constituent monarchies are led by tribal rulers, the sheikhs get public backing in return for improvements in living standards, including jobs, homes, health care, and education.

It's the only form of governance the UAE has ever known.

Tribal autocracy/state owned, loss making, Etihad Airways is City's primary sponsor. Sheikh Mansour is a very important member of this tribal autocracy coz he's one of their bloodline. Of course he has to be competent, bloodline or not, he wouldn't have risen to his position if he were a blithering idiot, but he wouldn't be a contender were it not for his bloodline. The tribal autocracy/state is one big extended family, and it's the same state that owns Etihad Airways.

So the connection is indisputable, whether this connection is illegal under competition law I couldn't say, if it is deemed illegal then that's a problem for us going forward and an even bigger one for Newcastle.

If this panel of KCs rules in favour of the Premier League, then City would have to take it to a higher court, not only for the club, but because of the implications for UAE investment in all other spheres.

If the Premier League don't stop pissing around a quiet word needs to be had, coz these tossers are jeopardising billions in investment and pissing off an important ally and why? To appease FSG, Kroenke and the Glazers!

 

[Norman kneejerk]

I am not sure that is a reason the club will win, and I will just add that all the "royal" families inter-marry, so it will be nearly impossible to find a company in AD that isn't associated to Mansour, if not directly then by marriage.

It is no coincidence the PL rules include this:

View attachment 126737

It is absolutely clear where these rules are targeted, and just to make sure:

View attachment 126739

It really couldn't be targeted any more blatantly, so I am pretty sure there is a good case that the definition is discriminatory (and has been drawn up for the benefit of certain other clubs) and the rules themselves are unnecessary and onerous, but whether that makes the whole thing illegal under competition law, I wouldn't like to say.

It should be, imho, but is it?

Agree controlled directly or indirectly by the same .... indirectly is the catch all. Very blatant

 

[cheekybids]

As you say these provisions are specifically aimed at Middle East owners, where anyone of consequence is in some way related to everyone else of consequence.

The UAE is a tribal autocracy, where the seven constituent monarchies are led by tribal rulers, the sheikhs get public backing in return for improvements in living standards, including jobs, homes, health care, and education.

It's the only form of governance the UAE has ever known.

Tribal autocracy/state owned, loss making, Etihad Airways is City's primary sponsor. Sheikh Mansour is a very important member of this tribal autocracy coz he's one of their own by bloodline. Of course he has to competent, bloodline or not, he wouldn't have risen to his position if he were a blithering idiot, but he wouldn't be a contender were he not of the bloodline. The tribal autocracy/state is one big extended family, and it's the same state that owns Etihad Airways.

So the connection is indisputable, whether this connection is illegal under competition law I couldn't say, if it is deemed illegal then that's a problem for us going forward and an even bigger one for Newcastle.

If this panel of KCs rules in favour of the Premier League, then City would have to take it to a higher court, not only for the club, but because of the implications for UAE investment in all other spheres.

If the Premier League don't stop pissing around a quiet word needs to had, coz these tossers are jeopardising billions in investment and pissing off an important ally and why? To appease FSG, Kroenke and the Glazers!

The UAE is a tribal autocracy, where the seven constituent monarchies are led by tribal rulers, the sheikhs get public backing in return for improvements in living standards, including jobs, homes, health care, and education.



Imagine, improving living standards……. The cunts !

 

[Sk@mcfc]

have i got this right ? basically any company from the middle east is "associated" to our owners(so its being claimed), if an american owned club gets sponsorship off an american company ,no problem

And wear the shitty red colour