City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Posted by Nerd on SSC-MCR, the City thread.
An interesting commentary on the latest announcements; from NYTimes, who do not have obvious skin in this game.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/66...city-premier-league-apt-settlement-explainer/
Key points they note:
- City clearly feel they now can give the go-ahead to proceed with their mega sponsorship from Etihad. Once this is signed, it will need to go through the 2024 version of the APT rules - City have not been provided with a free pass; but clearly the club have assured themselves that the basic structure of the deal is likely to be in accordance with the benchmark comparators that the Premier League intend to apply. This appears to have been one key factor in the previous Etihad sponsorship proposal being blocked; in that the previous proposed benchmarks were not, City maintained, of equivalent international sporting and commercial standing. It is not clear yet, and may never be, whether the deal currently being finalised is less generous, in terms of baseline or annual uplift, than the blocked deal would have been.
- City have been provided with assurances (or guarantees) of non-discrimination; specifically it appears that the Fair Market Value test will not be more stringently applied for deals with commercial entities in the Gulf (where there tends very commonly to be overlapping membership of executive boards). Abu Dhabi is a small place; and prominent Abu Dhabi families are extensive. Everyone is someone else's half-brother, cousin or in-law. City appear to have received assurances that Fair Market Value test will be the same for all sponsorship deals, whoever owns the club.
- City have dropped their argument for retrospective applicaiton of Fair Market Value to shareholder preferential loans in other clubs. This is the issue where the MCFC case before the forthcoming APT2 tribunal was strongest; but if they were to win, the consequence for a lot of clubs could have been financially catastrophic. There is no value in winning the argument, if in doing so you bring the house crashing down on everyone. Nobody loves a sore winner.
An interesting commentary on the latest announcements; from NYTimes, who do not have obvious skin in this game.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/66...city-premier-league-apt-settlement-explainer/
Key points they note:
- City clearly feel they now can give the go-ahead to proceed with their mega sponsorship from Etihad. Once this is signed, it will need to go through the 2024 version of the APT rules - City have not been provided with a free pass; but clearly the club have assured themselves that the basic structure of the deal is likely to be in accordance with the benchmark comparators that the Premier League intend to apply. This appears to have been one key factor in the previous Etihad sponsorship proposal being blocked; in that the previous proposed benchmarks were not, City maintained, of equivalent international sporting and commercial standing. It is not clear yet, and may never be, whether the deal currently being finalised is less generous, in terms of baseline or annual uplift, than the blocked deal would have been.
- City have been provided with assurances (or guarantees) of non-discrimination; specifically it appears that the Fair Market Value test will not be more stringently applied for deals with commercial entities in the Gulf (where there tends very commonly to be overlapping membership of executive boards). Abu Dhabi is a small place; and prominent Abu Dhabi families are extensive. Everyone is someone else's half-brother, cousin or in-law. City appear to have received assurances that Fair Market Value test will be the same for all sponsorship deals, whoever owns the club.
- City have dropped their argument for retrospective applicaiton of Fair Market Value to shareholder preferential loans in other clubs. This is the issue where the MCFC case before the forthcoming APT2 tribunal was strongest; but if they were to win, the consequence for a lot of clubs could have been financially catastrophic. There is no value in winning the argument, if in doing so you bring the house crashing down on everyone. Nobody loves a sore winner.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,887
Good summary except for the part about APT and 115 not being connected, where you are, of course, quite wrong.
That's my story and I am sticking with it :)
This whole bit made me laugh most.
I'd like to know which clubs feel that these rules preserve competitive balance, because I'm pretty sure a few have now come to their senses and know that's a load of crap.
It's the same as a load of Simon Stone shite - opinion masked as fact.
Oh, but we do! Because part of the settlement means City publicly accept the rules as valid and binding. Meaning, for all intents and purposes, the PL were right.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I have never believed that all refs are against us but there have always been individual bent decisions from time to time. There is also bias in favour of LFC and MUFC but that is more about peer group pressure and media pressure. The Rashford decision was dishonest and we still have not heard the tape. Strange that isn’t it?
That's as valid a take as any. But so is that the PL were right and City 'folded' because they ultimately knew this.
And that is ultimately how the statement is purposely framed.
Fwiw, I agree that I think City would probably have won on apt2. Given the second verdict and the fact the rules hadn't changed that substantially, but that's a layman reading articles. When they chose to settle, and issue that joint statement, they went with the perception as above. What they got out of it, we may never know, but that doesn't change the public perception one bit.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,887
Yes, I thought the NYT article was reasonably good and balanced, but they did start off with this, though:
"The compromise has avoided the nuclear outcome of the rulebook being ripped up entirely."
Which is interesting if there is any substance to it, but is most likely dramatic licence, I suppose.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 19,184
- Team supported
- Manchester City
As if the public perception regarding anything connected with City would be positive.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
100% was told in his ear to give the goal even though the blatantly offside payer was clearly interfering with play.
That decision was as bent as it comes and up there with David Luis v Chelsea and Milner's 27 non-yellow cards v the Dip's.
Yeah, I've seen it, since posting the few posts.
If anything, it has confirmed that my overall take is not at all wild. People here will jump at it, because, well bravado. But the PL got exactly the statement they wanted. We maybe got the outcome we wanted too, but we likely won't ever know.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
Many on this site have better contacts at City than Roan and Stone.
bladdered
Well-Known Member
City's going down with a billion in the bank...
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,816
What City say has no legal value other than as between City and the league.
Newcastle haven’t accepted the rules are valid. Neither have Villa. If either of them take the same points the PL are in just as much trouble as they were.
Some win.
You really do need to read the February decision, it will cure you
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
We’ve not folded on anything - the PL have. They’ve folded to City.
It’s no skin off our nose if the rules remain in place as long as we’re getting what we want.
Newcastle might be upset about it though…
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I actually think generally we have been treated better by refs since our success,
The second bit is not true, in the timeline others claim (whichseems to be right btw). The tribunal didn agree the fix was unlawful. Hence our subsequent challenge.
Moot though, as by accepting the tukes were valid, we accept the fix was valid too. Which is what the PL claimed.
How is that in any way difficult to understand?
It is simple, they claimed the rules as they were could be tweaked to be made lawful. We argued otherwise, but by now accepting them, they cpme away applearing to have been right.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
If your take is still that we have come out of this poorly then I'm sorry mate, I cannot agree with that. I wouldn't argue with your last two sentences though. The PL have saved some face as they haven't lost APT2. For the Club, they got enough that they deemed it more attractive to settle than take the legal risks of fighting on. As usual, its we the fans that invest in these battles on behalf of the club that are left hanging..... :-)
I hope to hell the judgement of the other stuff is communicated soon and we can get back to being purely football fans rather than understanding the minutiae of football finance and legal battles.
That really can't be claimed to any conclusive level whatsoever. Anyone's guess, but the statement is pretty clear though. The rules are valid and binding, as claimed by the PL.