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

[eboblue]

When we win we should be awarded 115 PL points to be used as we see fit over this and the next 3 seasons.

The way we're playing, I'd split to 38 per season toward the 40 point mark!

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well i think you answered your own question. 23 claims unproven is not, 23 no evidence to support. The panel will be looking for a path to navigate through, where they can give the PL what they want, with the panel keeping their integrity, should City win the 23 at a later date.
We do know the panel was corrupt, when they claimed that APT was needed, when in fact the UEFA version is already being used.

Only the wearers of the most blue-tinted glasses would say the arbitrators were corrupt for concluding APT was required when the PL put up a pretty weak defence and it wasn't challenged aggressively by the club. It's one of the mysteries of the tribunal for me, why the club didn't push the arbitrators on that point. A strategic reason has been suggested and I suppose we will find out shortly.

Fwiw, I don't think the arbitrators are trying to give the PL what it wants, I think they made the mistake of assuming the two parties could work together responsibly on a way forward, given the tribunal's findings. All imho.

And there is almost no chance of this ending up in the courts, again imho

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Only the wearers of the most blue-tinted glasses would say the arbitrators were corrupt for concluding APT was required when the PL put up a pretty weak defence and it wasn't challenged aggressively by the club. It's one of the mysteries of the tribunal for me, why the club didn't push the arbitrators on that point. A strategic reason has been suggested and I suppose we will find out shortly.

Fwiw, I don't think the arbitrators are trying to give the PL what it wants, I think they made the mistake of assuming the two parties could work together responsibly on a way forward, given the tribunal's findings. All imho.

And there is almost no chance of this ending up in the courts, again imho

Only a tint? i must have been too polite, whether it goes further depends on the PL backing down on rules, that quite clearly target owners from the Middle East. As for why City allowed it, they have just proved the PL acted illegally, it is now a case of attaching that, to their attack on owners from the Middle east. No easy task but one that can bring down the cartel.

 

[WRicko]

Only the wearers of the most blue-tinted glasses would say the arbitrators were corrupt for concluding APT was required when the PL put up a pretty weak defence and it wasn't challenged aggressively by the club. It's one of the mysteries of the tribunal for me, why the club didn't push the arbitrators on that point. A strategic reason has been suggested and I suppose we will find out shortly.

Fwiw, I don't think the arbitrators are trying to give the PL what it wants, I think they made the mistake of assuming the two parties could work together responsibly on a way forward, given the tribunal's findings. All imho.

And there is almost no chance of this ending up in the courts, again imho

Why do you say the panel being weak and in my view wrongly supporting financial restraints is still not a sign of bias or even corruption

The panel in my view wrongly accepted the reason and need and general form of financial controls when the reality is it’s a restraint of trade corruption agenda and bias within the big history American clubs

 

[halfcenturyup]

Why do you say the panel being weak and in my view wrongly supporting financial restraints is still not a sign of bias or even corruption

The panel in my view wrongly accepted the reason and need and general form of financial controls when the reality is it’s a restraint of trade corruption agenda and bias within the big history American clubs

I didn't say the arbitrators were weak. I said the PL's defence was weak but that it seems it wasn't really countered by the club. And don't forget they were never asked to consider the lawfulness of PSR.

The tribunal can only judge what is put in front of it on the topics brought before it and I don't think they were wrong to conclude APTs were a necessary part of PSR based on the evidence which seems to have been presented by the parties. Why the club didn't (seem to) counter the PL's evidence more effectively is what makes me wonder why they didn't.

 

[johnny crossan]

Just read this most interesting and succinct post referencing the currently blocked Etihad deal on another forum:

"Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to the now cancelled 5 year rag one with Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it."

Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A: Etihad's Gorgeous New Home

Here's a look at Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A, which is the airport's impressive new terminal, and home to Etihad Airways.

onemileatatime.com

 

[cheekybids]

Just read this most interesting and succinct post referencing the currently blocked Etihad deal on another forum:

"Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to the now cancelled 5 year rag one with Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it."

Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A: Etihad's Gorgeous New Home

Here's a look at Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A, which is the airport's impressive new terminal, and home to Etihad Airways.

onemileatatime.com

I still can’t grasp that the premier league would put so much effort in telling the world that the greatest club of the last decade in their competition isn’t an attractive partner for global brands. It’s insanity or corruption & I know what my money is on.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Just read this most interesting and succinct post referencing the currently blocked Etihad deal on another forum:

"Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to the now cancelled 5 year rag one with Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it."

Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A: Etihad's Gorgeous New Home

Here's a look at Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A, which is the airport's impressive new terminal, and home to Etihad Airways.

onemileatatime.com

Very interesting points well made.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I still can’t grasp that the premier league would put so much effort in telling the world that the greatest club of the last decade in their competition isn’t an attractive partner for global brands. It’s insanity or corruption & I know what my money is on.

 

[richards30]

Just read this most interesting and succinct post referencing the currently blocked Etihad deal on another forum:

"Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to the now cancelled 5 year rag one with Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it."

Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A: Etihad's Gorgeous New Home

Here's a look at Abu Dhabi Airport Terminal A, which is the airport's impressive new terminal, and home to Etihad Airways.

onemileatatime.com

Wasn’t the Etihad deal blocked as it was being proposed at £100m a year? Still cheap for a stadium, shirt and whole fucking training campus?