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

[The Stockport Iniesta]

It's a bit more complex than that. To make APT lawful they'll have to include director loans & apply the amended rules retrospectively. Obviously, this has several serious implications.

If they throw the whole lot out, it has serious implications for clubs affected by the unlawful APT rule.

From what I can see, the PL are fucked if they do, & fucked if they don't. They've only got themselves to blame...

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

Fuck em!!

 

[halfcenturyup]

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.

That is what is happening, I think. The PL are re-opening the question of RPT and fair value on the AD sponsorships in the 115 case That seems to me to be the only reason why that redacted paragraph in the APT reasoning makes any sense.

As you say, good luck with that.

 

[cheekybids]

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.

I believe that’s called getting off on a technicality……

 

[WRicko]

The Telegraph artticle is so biast it's untrue.
The point that scrutinisation of Arsenal and Liverpool occurs under UEFA rules are irrelevant. As has been proven with City.

The PL legal advisors probably told them they were in trouble on a number of counts.
Probadly as follows:

1. Loans are either included or they're not.
- If they're not then sponsorships prior to the new improved rules must also be excluded.
if theyre not then City will go back to the tribuneral and win again as sure as night follows day.

2. To comply with the ruling the final decision on sponsorships will have to be arbitured by an independent body and NOT by the PL.

3. Information will have to be shared with City as to the reasons why the PL want to block the sponsorships at various stages in the process. Including information about comparable sponsorship amounts by other clubs.
- As the sponsorships that were rejected were not much bigger than other clubs recent clubs recent sponsorships then the PL clearly wants to pay City even more money.

4. The PL will have to agree compensation with City for:
- Loss of two sponsorships.
AND
- The fact that the rules were declared ILLEGAL, UNFAIR and UNREASONABLE.

What a bunch of clowns.

I think you mean sponsorship must be included

 

[BlueAnorak]

The PL could try to show Etihad is caught by IAS 24. That presumably would have to be decided by the tribunal in the 115 Case or by a specific action. Good luck with that.
UEFA tried this but it never went anywhere due to the settlement of our first case.

Good luck with that - i know IAS has tightened the "Related Party" rules over the last 10 years, but Sheikh Mansour is still not a related party by the current rules.
The PL trying to change that interpretation will probably get our auditors suing them for implying they don't work with due diligence.
Extraordinary.
What a bunch of clowns.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I think you mean sponsorship must be included

The second "not" applied to the previous sentence not the original sentence. I have made the meaning clearer.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I see the Telegraph changed the article from this Thursday to next Tuesday as though nothing has happened...
No mention of legal and financial advice.

The Telegraph's football journalists hatred of City knows no bounds.

They’re going for the Newcastle takeover in a big way today. Several articles as well as the hit job on City…apparently some MPs (*eeeek*) want to re-examine the takeover. Good luck with that.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Good luck with that - i know IAS has tightened the "Related Party" rules over the last 10 years, but Sheikh Mansour is still not a related party by the current t rules.
The PL trying to change that interpretation will probably get our auditors suing them for implying they don't work with due diligence.
Extraordinary.
What a bunch of clowns.

Sheikh Mansour would almost certainly be a related party to City. However there's no way he could be described as a related party to Etihad. Nor are Etihad a related party to City.

 

[Matt Diablo]

Quite beautiful how this is all playing out. Almost like military precision . . .

 

[Grassland Blue]

Quite beautiful how this is all playing out. Almost like military precision . . .

'Tis like a David Silva through ball....