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

[CC1]

In some ways, given we are about to sell/have already sold the next 10 years of rights to Etihad on the basis of the old rule anyway, it is less relevant to City than many others.

Were we prevented from receiving the whole amount because it was deemed not to be FMV - or did we take it all & would have had to only put the PL’s FMV in the accounts?

 

[hertsblue]

How has the Daily Fail got hold of the 14 page document?

A 14-page document outlining proposed changes and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting at the swanky Nobu Hotel in Portman Square.

The inclusion of shareholder loans – monies lent to clubs from those with stakes in them – is one of three changes being proposed across the 14 pages.

Instead, that exclusion has now been removed, although equity injection investments remain exempt. The other two focus on access to a databank of commercial deals used by the Premier League to reach a verdict on whether a proposed sponsorship is at fair market value (FMV) and the reversal of a number of changes brought in earlier this year.

The definition of FMV has been changed from whether the amount ‘could’ be sold rather than ‘would’ be sold between willing parties. The words ‘in normal market conditions’ have been removed, along with three lengthy paragraphs outlining its definition by the Premier League. There is an argument that in exceptional circumstances companies linked to countries in the midst of huge drives for exposure, such as Saudi Arabia, would be willing to pay a premium.

One issue the competition may face is a reluctance from those who benefit from shareholder loans to vote for the changes. And clarity may need to be sought from the tribunal panel on whether the amendments satisfy their requirements.

Premier League summons clubs for crunch meeting regarding APT rules

MIKE KEEGAN: A 14-page document outlining proposed amendments and seen by Mail Sport has been sent to clubs ahead of what promises to be a potentially volatile meeting.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Just add it to the list of leaks where we can tell them to fuck off if they try finding us guilty for non co-operation

 

[Ajm1985]

Were we prevented from receiving the whole amount because it was deemed not to be FMV - or did we take it all & would have had to only put the PL’s FMV in the accounts?

The rules stated we couldn't take any of it

 

[CC1]

The rules stated we couldn't take any of it

So we’re better off then

 

[Chris in London]

Is it me or is would a stricter meaning than could

Yes it is - stricter in the sense of it being easier for the PL to prove a transaction was above fair market value.

'Could' implies a range of possible values, and the approach before the rules were changed was that the PL would take the highest end of the spectrum. That was fair because it reflects the fact that a sponsor might have their own reasons for wanting to pay over the odds.

'Would' rather implies the opposite, as the tribunal found. It essentially anchors any assessment of fair market value at a sort of mid-range level, whereas for the champions of England Europe and the World (as we were until May) we might very much be entitled to insist on top dollar.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Yes it is - stricter in the sense of it being easier for the PL to prove a transaction was above fair market value.

'Could' implies a range of possible values, and the approach before the rules were changed was that the PL would take the highest end of the spectrum. That was fair because it reflects the fact that a sponsor might have their own reasons for wanting to pay over the odds.

'Would' rather implies the opposite, as the tribunal found. It essentially anchors any assessment of fair market value at a sort of mid-range level, whereas for the champions of England Europe and the World (as we were until May) we might very much be entitled to insist on top dollar.

So unless Etihad decide to sponsor us for £200m a season, we're golden?

 

[slbsn]

Were we prevented from receiving the whole amount because it was deemed not to be FMV - or did we take it all & would have had to only put the PL’s FMV in the accounts?

I suspect we took the full 24/25 as the main objections were in the later years and have a bit of time to fix the future years. Rules say clubs can’t take agreements that are above FMV as opposed to taking them and only accounting for a lower amount

 

[KS55]

I suspect we took the full 24/25 as the main objections were in the later years and have a bit of time to fix the future years. Rules say clubs can’t take agreements that are above FMV as opposed to taking them and only accounting for a lower amount

That rule is manifestly ridiculous. If the PL rule that a contract is 5% above FMV, the effect is the same as if it were 100% above.

 

[slbsn]

You are probably right - I checked on the PL's initial statement when the ruling came out and they referenced more than once the removal of "evidently" in the 2024 amendments as one of the points the tribunal had specifically commented on. It would be odd if they weren't now rolling that back as well.

Chances are, as you say, it's sloppy reporting/sloppy sourcework.

However...

Mail is now updated with specific reference to “evidently” … Premier League summons clubs for crunch meeting regarding APT rules
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...tml?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

 

[Chris in London]

Mail is now updated with specific reference to “evidently” … Premier League summons clubs for crunch meeting regarding APT rules
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...tml?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

Thanks for the update!

Plainly they read Bluemoon…