City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Sounds good but it is just a conspiracy theory. The reality is there were serious allegations re Etihad that led to 115. And there was debatable but legitimate concerns about the escalator on the largest ever British sponsorship deal. The truth is not quite as dramatic but that is my naive take.

Why did the PL not say to City that any renewal of Etihad is suspended, pending the outcome of 115. If just one year of our accounts have failed 115 because of Etihad then any future sponsorships are out the window, we can forget it - because the relationship would have zero integrity.

 

[77lost by a point]

Sounds good but it is just a conspiracy theory. The reality is there were serious allegations re Etihad that led to 115. And there was debatable but legitimate concerns about the escalator on the largest ever British sponsorship deal. The truth is not quite as dramatic but that is my naive take.

Naive is acceptable it's those who are clueless that aren't.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Would have thought the other clubs are loosing their shit with one club blowing 500m in one window and nicking clubs best players

 

[Chris in London]

I agree with most of that but I don't agree it was a drop hands. City terminate their case yes. But a) I don't think they received a drop hands on Etihad - there was no case to drop b) the PL can't simply waive the Etihad deal through in exchange for City stopping on APT2 - that would be challenged by other clubs and a direct breach of the rules c) City definitely would not have waived costs to date on APT1 and probably APT2.

I suspect City have, in any event, now convinced the PL as to an acceptable FMV escalator at the centre of the dispute.

I agree nothing blocks Newcastle from picking up the reigns but they didn't even bother to be co-claimant with City so that is unlikely unless the new CEO wants to cause a stir.

The only "drop hands" I meant to indicate is in relation to the specific challenge to the November 24 amendments and the Etihad deal, which arguably was no longer in issue in any event. Plainly there are wider issues that will have been included within the settlement, since the agreement is stated to bring the dispute to a complete end, so one assumes that the settlement covers for instance the costs of the two hearings in APT 1 and the question of compensation quite apart from any issues as to how the Etihad deal is valued.

You're probably right that Newcastle don't appear to have the stomach for this fight. What can be said is that its time for them to either piss or get off the pot.

 

[cheekybids]

Correct, and he takes his job very seriously. It's astonishing that in todays article, he manages to twist and manipulate every single paragraph into a negative. There's even an unflattering picture of Enzo Maresca with the title being:-

"Daily Mail Sport revealed the likes of Chelsea have been sympathetic to City, but others have feared for the balance of English football"

Note the "the likes of..." rather than "clubs such as..." which (to my mind) suggests that Chelsea shouldn't be taken seriously as they're dodgy too.

I was expecting a headline “How City’s gulf owners saw off Liverpools American juggernauts!”

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I've just emailed Herbert saying hope he enjoys his city hating when he is signing on.

What a crank.

Whilst you will no doubt feel better for having done this, Herbert will continue in his role as just another shill employed as their anti-City hero of choice.

Enjoy the successes and battles won against our adversaries, and try not to let the fuckers get to you.

They will come at us even more, but to what real effect in the long term ?

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Correct, and he takes his job very seriously. It's astonishing that in todays article, he manages to twist and manipulate every single paragraph into a negative. There's even an unflattering picture of Enzo Maresca with the title being:-

"Daily Mail Sport revealed the likes of Chelsea have been sympathetic to City, but others have feared for the balance of English football"

Note the "the likes of..." rather than "clubs such as..." which (to my mind) suggests that Chelsea shouldn't be taken seriously as they're dodgy too.

If his ‘articles’ are useful at all, it’s to understand the comms position FSG are taking on key issues - and the direction one of the key players in the PL’s current US ownership bloc are promoting the PL towards.

His words (and those of other US-led club client journalists) are indicative of the direction FSG and other US owners want to see the PL taking - for example shareholder loans are good, but owner-linked sponsorship deals are bad.

Even though, in essence, their purpose is the same - namely a method for an owner to funnel money directly into their Club to bolster its balance sheet and project the appearance of financial sustainability, enabling them to spend beyond their means.

More widely, their position is clearly that ‘Gulf’ (Herbert in his less guarded moments) or ‘State Owned’ (when he’s attempting to present a more nuanced, principled viewpoint) Clubs should be shackled at every turn, whilst the traditionally successful, US-owned Clubs should be enabled to retain their historic position of primacy.

All in the interest of fairness and competition - and the good of the game - of course.

It’s all a tissue of scarcely credible, illogical nonsense - but that’s the angle FSG are paying him to promote.

 

[Gingers Dad]

Agreed! The refs are dreadful, but they've never been any good. Keith Hackett pops up now as a sage old ref, but he was useless!

For every howler that's gone against us remember there's that wierd Sterling offside goal against Watford which helped us nip Liverpool to the title or Aguero's offside goal against Swansea in the FA Cup.

They go for and against us (like any other club), but that doesn't mean it evens itself up over the season, it's a distortion. Then so is the weather, injuries and suspensions, extra matches and recovery time. It's daft to highlight one thing whilst ignoring all the others.

The best referees are the ones who you don't notice.

Liverpool fans are convinced we only won the league when Everton didn't get a penalty, after Rodri got away with playing basketball at the Gladys Street end. Surprisingly Everton fans never mention it.

 

[cheekybids]

That doesn't back up the original argument. You took on a new argument.
Original argument was a City fan claiming we are shafted by refs every week and refereed differently. My counter was most football fans feel the same about their club. I know rag season ticket holders who walk away from games and think they have been done over!

Your only loose link to the original point would be we are reffed differently to United, potentially but again, every other clubs fans would probably say that

I backed up my argument by using a small sample over 50 years. Your defence is nobody gets treated the same as the Rags so I’ll widen my sample to now include the Dippers…..

 

[Marvin.]

The previous rulings by the APT panel found that the APT rules as initially constituted were illegal. There was a possibility that the forthcoming APT hearing could have led to a historical reappraisal of the accounts of clubs with shareholder loans leading to rule breaches and financial mayhem. The idea that City would back down entirely given the successes the club secured in the initial APT hearings seems unlikely. The nature of the settlement is unknown at present but it may become clearer if and when commercial agreements are announced or in the publication of future accounts. I think it is likely that the PL made significant concessions to settle the dispute.

 

[slbsn]

Why did the PL not say to City that any renewal of Etihad is suspended, pending the outcome of 115. If just one year of our accounts have failed 115 because of Etihad then any future sponsorships are out the window, we can forget it - because the relationship would have zero integrity.

They had no power to do so. And without allegations of wrongdoing beyond 2018, even if City lose it does not follow the PL can impugn the Etihad contracts in other years even if perception will be of no integrity

 

[lust overlord]

Arsenal fans online tend to think there's a red card vendetta against them.

Liverpool fans point to Rodris 'handball' against Everton and say we get everything.

Every team does moan. Every team has fans that are incredibly one-eyed and see any 50-50 decision that goes against them as proof of bias.

Not saying we don't get shit decisions, we do. They aren't always because of who we are though.

I think we occasionally get poor decisions that come across as the refs "levelling the playing field", as we seem to be on the end of shit decisions in high profile games more.
A few years back this didn't matter as much.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Liverpool fans are convinced we only won the league when Everton didn't get a penalty, after Rodri got away with playing basketball at the Gladys Street end. Surprisingly Everton fans never mention it.

It may/may not have been handball. It was the sort of subjective decision that happens week in week out and in another game wouldn't even get a mention.

However, there's the small matter of the Everton lad being offside in the build up which was where the game restated from with a free kick to us.

 

[TedofChume]

In fairness with the APT decision plus the PL rules, we know a lot about how FMV is assessed by the PL and the process.

That's true, but rules are rules and one person will interpret them one way and another another way. That will also vary over time even if the rules don't change. I would say that all you can conclude from what you've read is that that is what happened in that instance, not necessarily what will happen next time.

I know it's a long time ago, but when PSG did that collosal sponsorship deal with the Qatar tourist board, UEFA said it broke the rules on FMV. Then PSG got their own consultant to calculate FMV and came up with a different outcome. UEFA then backed down.

It's all down to interpretation, so it is still bull***t. Mind you you could say that about a lot of things.

I know from a friend that Standard Chartered had agreed a deal to sponsor United, and when the CEO of AIG found out he stepped in with a much higher bid, "over my dead body". Standard Chartered then took their second choice. That's the market functioning with competition. I don't think any FMV calculation would account for that.

 

[mancboy]

Evidence, or do you mean your opinion? The same way a different fan will believe they get less decisions than City. Easy example, I was away when we played Wolves. Watching in a bar. I felt some decisions were going against us but nothing drastic. The Wolves fan in there was going ballistic, claiming big team bias and you could clearly hear the Wolves fans on tv feeling like City was being favoured by the ref. Your example is not a City thing is it, you have clearly proved that what may have gone for Chelsea went against Fulham?

I do not support refs at all, I think they are shit and a waste of space. I don't think it evens out because it is impossible to say but you have clearly proved my point by only listing decisions that you believe (opinion not fact) have gone for other clubs and not for City. That is simply the inconsistency of the very poor refs we have in our country who are incompetent. Whilst casually ignoring Traffords handball outside of the area (same as Henderson before you mention that one) that was ignored and we kept 11 men on the pitch when maybe we shouldn't against Spurs. Swings and roundabouts, not entirely even, but some will go for you, some against.

How are factual incidents my opinion, i have shown two exact same challenges being treated entirely differently, thats not my opinion its right there?

 

[mancboy]

This sentence said it all for me:

"The deluded who rage against controls, claiming to be the victims of some phantom 'red cartel', neglect to remember that English football has always been built on the primacy of competition"

Is the guy so deluded that he can't see how a club like Man Utd with their fanbase and attendances are financially in a stronger position than Bournemouth or Brentford?

Is he blissfully unaware of how John Moores bankrolled Liverpool to success in the 70s and 80s, Robert Maxwell bankrolled Oxford United to the first division and Elton John with Watford (inc FA Cup) in the 80s, or Jack Walker with Blackburn and John Hall with Newcastle in the 90s or Abramovich with Chelsea in the 00s.

These APT & PSR rules would have prevented all of that.

the primacy of competition is he having a giraffe, the rags and dippers dominated their eras and there was no issue with that whatsoever, what a complete load of bitter crap

 

[mancboy]

I know only a small sample but I was in Jamaica last month and literally everyone is a city fan. Every worker in the hotel was and on every trip we did there were city shirts everywhere. Every taxi driver was. The geezers running the dolphin park were. You’d see some mad little random Rasta climb out of the bushes on some secluded roadside in an old school city top.

Irie.

STONED rose was in jamaica, of course you were lol ;)

 

[Stoned Rose]

If his ‘articles’ are useful at all, it’s to understand the comms position FSG are taking on key issues - and the direction one of the key players in the PL’s current US ownership bloc are promoting the PL towards.

His words (and those of other US-led club client journalists) are indicative of the direction FSG and other US owners want to see the PL taking - for example shareholder loans are good, but owner-linked sponsorship deals are bad.

Even though, in essence, their purpose is the same - namely a method for an owner to funnel money directly into their Club to bolster its balance sheet and project the appearance of financial sustainability, enabling them to spend beyond their means.

More widely, their position is clearly that ‘Gulf’ (Herbert in his less guarded moments) or ‘State Owned’ (when he’s attempting to present a more nuanced, principled viewpoint) Clubs should be shackled at every turn, whilst the traditionally successful, US-owned Clubs should be enabled to retain their historic position of primacy.

All in the interest of fairness and competition - and the good of the game - of course.

It’s all a tissue of scarcely credible, illogical nonsense - but that’s the angle FSG are paying him to promote.

Luckily for them, scousers are extremely fond of scarcely credible illogical nonsense.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

[Dabs eyes with hanky] Will no-one think of the poor penniless Premier League….?!

There’s clowns and then there’s Collymore…..

 

[mac]

You forget that the team attacking the most is in the oppositions penalty area the most. Therefore there are more opprtunities for penalties for one team than the other.

If a dominant Utd have 9 shouts for a penalty in a match and a weak piss poor Liverpool have 1 shout. Then if the referee awards on average say 20%. Utd would get roughly 2 penalties and Liverpool 0.

Simply having the ball in the oppositions box, puts pressure on the defense and increaes the chances of getting a penalty, irrespective of anything else.

So you can't equate it to numbers of penalties alone.

Utd are s**t now and don't get as many as they did.

Well we don't get many.