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

[Dribble]

No, clearly not.

What about a majority interest, which is different to a controlling interest?

 

[argyle]

If this decision was complex and has led to both sides claiming a victory, imagine what is going to happen with the charges!

I don't think it will be like the CAS verdict. I have a feeling it will be like this case and there will be decisions for and against us.

 

[meltonblue]

Does it state them as a no goer? Or does it set them aside?

I was saying no goer to the posters viewpoint rather than the judgement. In terms of the judgement though, they found that the PL were not wrong in their FMV assessment. They set aside the decisions due to the lack of availability from us to the data used to justify it. Given that data was assessed for them to come to the judgment on the FMV decision, I’m not sure how we’ll be able to now argue them and they then be allowed.

The more likely outcome is if they are to be allowed, it’s due to them having to negate all the rules, as per the email sent last night by the club. Whether that’ll happen, we’ve just got to wait and see.

 

[bluealf]

You could always point out that we are the second biggest brand in football in 2024. We were the biggest brand in 2023. Evaluation carried out by Brand Finance.

or he could have just dropped him with a right hook and went about the rest of the day with a smile.

 

[northendenton]

Not if she turns out to be a serial killer :)

Well give her a full English and hide the cornflakes in the morning

 

[cleavers]

Has anyone got to the end of this thread yet?

Yes, I just go to the last page when I revisit, I doubt I've missed much.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Because the ruling is redacted we have no idea how much the three deals, Etihad, Emirates Palace and First Abu Dhabi Bank are being revalued by the PL/Nielsen. Looks like they are saying, by implication, Etihad has always been above FMV, since day one, circa 2009. Those down graded valuations may well reappear in the 130 hearing, along with Etihad spending a few days explaining why the deals were in fact exceptionally good value to them. What the Panel will do, who knows, I'd like to think the Nielsen 'analysis' will be inadmissible in the time frame 2009-2018.

 

[Elbow beards]

This from the Lawyer.
'... In other words, shareholder loans should be subject to the same rules as other APTs. Ironically, as the Premier League points out, City actually voted in favour of excluding shareholder loans in 2021'
Why did City vote in favour of excluding loans and then chang their mind and why would Arsenal vote to include them?
I don't get it.

 

[flb]

Maybe all clubs should be allowed to agree on everyone’s sponsorship who the fuck do the PL think they are? What’s to stop them saying sponsorship of bog rolls at United is worth more than City, fucking scandalous

We are the most successful club of the last decade , have the biggest revenue in the league , the most watched PL team in America , a social media following that eclipses Liverpool and Arsenal and will soon overtake Uniteds . We’ve broke every record set in football , we play a brand of football that is the envy the whole of Europe and beyond. What does surprise me though is why aren’t we attracting sponsorship deals that can’t even be lumped into the related party transactions element? So Amazon could in theory throw a £100m a year deal at us and no questions could be asked ?

 

[johnny crossan]

....Why did City vote in favour of excluding loans and then change their mind ...?

City were clearly setting them up for the Tribunal sting.