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

halfcenturyup said:
Again no, it doesn't mean that. City accepting the November 2024 rules as valid and binding means nothing to any other club who could take the issue up with the PL in arbitration. Then we would find out who was "right".

It's a strange statement anyway. If Newcastle take up this case and are successful, the rules won't be valid and binding on City whatever the PL says. It should say something like "City withdraw their challenge of the November 2024 rules and will not challenge their legality in the future".

Basically, it's meaningless guff for purposes of perception. Something in which the club doesn't get involved.
Click to expand...

Sure, if the statement said that. But it doesn't.
 
Coatigan said:
To be clear, at no point do I argue we have come out of this poorly. At no point.

My argument is, that based on that statement, nobody can possibly know.

It is framed in such a way, that validates the PL stance. And says literally no more than that. Who gained what, whether we folded or the PL sold their soul to us, that's all conjecture, but nothing at all to back that we have 'won'.

The statement is a public admission the PL were right, there is no ifs or buts about that however.
Click to expand...
The statement says we accept the re-written rules. Not that the PL were “right”. It’s possible to accept something whilst acknowledging it’s not “right”.

It’s a lot easier to accept something you don’t believe is “right” if you get some kind of incentive to do so. A settlement so to speak.

Stefan mentioned on Talkshite earlier the Etihad deal is likely to be worth 1.75 billion over 10 years, should it go through, which most commentators seem to think it now will.

That kind of thing can make a man think “fair fucks, I can live with a bit of nonsense if I’m getting what I want / think I deserve”. That is the “settlement” part of this, from city’s perspective.
 
CC1 said:
But they had the original rules thrown out & probably the new ones don’t affect us any more. Also, shareholder loans now have to attract interest.
We don’t need to fight anymore re APT
Click to expand...

People are confusing the club "accepting" the validity of the November 2024 rules with them being found to be lawful. There has still been no determination of the legality of those rules. They are still open to challenge.

Imho, if we look at APT 1 and 2 together from the point of view of the club: the February 2024 rules, which added more onerous requirements, were thrown out and will not be repeated in any future rules; in a hugely embarrassing judgment for the PL, the rules from 2021 to October 2024 were declared null and void because of the exclusion of shareholder loans, which consequently had to be included in the new rules causing a number of clubs to change their financing structure; and the club has apparently achieved approval of the Etihad deal or, at least, negotiated amended terms which are acceptable to it.

If we look from the point of view of the PL, they have confirmation that APT rules, are, in principle, lawful, something City never challenged until the February 2024 changes; and they have November 2024 rules the legality of which hasn't been determined yet.

I know who I think has come out of it all in better shape, and it's not the PL by a long distance.
 
Manc Born & Bred said:
'However, according to sources at several rival clubs, they have not been told any details about the settlement, nor what it means'. Aah diddums

www.bbc.co.uk

Premier League: Clubs want clarity over Manchester City APT rules 'settlement'

Premier League clubs want more clarity about the settlement of a legal dispute with Manchester City over the rules that govern commercial deals, BBC Sport has been told.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Are they genuinely expecting us to believe the cartel didn’t know / weren’t tipped off this was coming?

That’s hilarious even from the bbc.
 
halfcenturyup said:
People are confusing the club "accepting" the validity of the November 2024 rules with them being found to be lawful. There has still been no determination of the legality of those rules. They are still open to challenge.

Imho, if we look at APT 1 and 2 together from the point of view of the club: the February 2024 rules, which added more onerous requirements, were thrown out and will not be repeated in any future rules; in a hugely embarrassing judgment for the PL, the rules from 2021 to October 2024 were declared null and void because of the exclusion of shareholder loans, which consequently had to be included in the new rules causing a number of clubs to change their financing structure; and the club has apparently achieved approval of the Etihad deal or, at least, negotiated amended terms which are acceptable to it.

If we look from the point of view of the PL, they have confirmation that APT rules, are, in principle, lawful, something City never challenged until the February 2024 changes; and they have November 2024 rules the legality of which hasn't been determined yet.

I know who I think has come out of it all in better shape, and it's not the PL by a long distance.
Click to expand...
Nice summary. We wouldn’t have “gone quietly” if it wasn’t to our advantage. The club haven’t taken it this far to just “give up”.
Basically- we got what we wanted!
 
Several?

United.
Liverpool.
Arsenal.
Spurs.
Brighton? (Bloom is a c*nt!)
West Ham?
Chelsea?
Perm the others who voted for the amended and new APT rules?
 
Stoned Rose said:
The statement says we accept the re-written rules. Not that the PL were “right”. It’s possible to accept something whilst acknowledging it’s not “right”.

It’s a lot easier to accept something you don’t believe is “right” if you get some kind of incentive to do so. A settlement so to speak.

Stefan mentioned on Talkshite earlier the Etihad deal is likely to be worth 1.75 billion over 10 years, should it go through, which most commentators seem to think it now will.

That kind of thing can make a man think “fair fucks, I can live with a bit of nonsense if I’m getting what I want / think I deserve”. That is the “settlement” part of this, from city’s perspective.
Click to expand...

Let's not get silly. The statement is simple. It doesn't say we accept the rules. It says we accept rhe rules arw valid and binding. Which is what the PL claimed. Our statement publicly endorses that their position was right.

What that may have cost the PL or what we gain from that, people can go as wild with as their imagination allows.

But the statement itself is beyond queation or debate, nobody can argue otherwise.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course, they are. Because we’ve dropped our challenge in exchange for what we wanted - as reported by Mike Keegan who has got absolutely everything right about this challenge so far.

Hopefully we either announce the expansion of the Etihad deal (and other sponsors) or we just wait to see an increase in our books.
 
Chris in London said:
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
Click to expand...

So if villa and Newcastle challenge these rules like City did the pl are still in the same mess ?

In reality the pl need to change the rules to prevent possible other clubs going court against them ?
 
nmc said:
Don’t think that’ll happen. The Etihad deal is in place. The escalator element has probably been amended upwards - so it’s hugely lucrative for City but don’t see why we’d announce it - just take the money…. and let the Red cartel fume in the background.
Click to expand...
Yes, we ie City took legal action to make rules legal that were important to City.
Some of those rules were to our advantage but are great to concede during any possible negotiation.
Let others either get used to those that we leave or legally challenge them.
 
jrb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Best interpretation of this nonsense I’ve read yet.
 
CC1 said:
But they had the original rules thrown out & probably the new ones don’t affect us any more. Also, shareholder loans now have to attract interest.
We don’t need to fight anymore re APT
Click to expand...

The rules were never thrown out. They were tweaked. We clearly did think they affected us, hence we challenged them so confidently. For whatever reason, we have pulled out of that challenge. That reinforces the PL's position. It is that simple mate.
 

homerdog said:
Even when the quote is a meaningless load of old bollocks!

I love the fact that these malicious cunts running the cartel have been left incandescent with rage as a result of this - just imaging their reaction when the 115 verdict is in!
Click to expand...
They are always anonymous, it’s a way for Roan to spread poison about City,
 
Coatigan said:
Let's not get silly. The statement is simple. It doesn't say we accept the rules. It says we accept rhe rules arw valid and binding. Which is what the PL claimed. Our statement publicly endorses that their position was right.

What that may have cost the PL or what we gain from that, people can go as wild with as their imagination allows.

But the statement itself is beyond queation or debate, nobody can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
They can, and I just have.

You’re out of butter again aren’t you? I can tell.
 
Coatigan said:
The rules were never thrown out. They were tweaked. We clearly did think they affected us, hence we challenged them so confidently. For whatever reason, we have pulled out of that challenge. That reinforces the PL's position. It is that simple mate.
Click to expand...
They were found to be unlawful so can still be challenged should we wish. No need to take the matter any further perhaps?
 
Stoned Rose said:
The statement says we accept the re-written rules. Not that the PL were “right”. It’s possible to accept something whilst acknowledging it’s not “right”.

It’s a lot easier to accept something you don’t believe is “right” if you get some kind of incentive to do so. A settlement so to speak.

Stefan mentioned on Talkshite earlier the Etihad deal is likely to be worth 1.75 billion over 10 years, should it go through, which most commentators seem to think it now will.

That kind of thing can make a man think “fair fucks, I can live with a bit of nonsense if I’m getting what I want / think I deserve”. That is the “settlement” part of this, from city’s perspective.
Click to expand...
Stefan also said he thought the PL would pay City’s costs. That tells you everything about who won. I believe the statement is just us throwing the PL a bone because we are about to destroy them in the 115 case,
 
slbsn said:
As ever there is nuance. Undeniably City gained some meaningful wins from APT1 and, in all likelihood, APT2. The scale of the victory depends on how important you consider the change of "would" back to "could" and the burden being on the PL to establish that a given deal was evidently not at FMV. Those matters are not nothing but nor are they headline making a year down the line. It is why I suggested it was a narrow win/score draw at the time. The PL come out with APT conceptually broadly "endorsed" but with a set of rules City are generally ok with.
Click to expand...

Well you and I at least make it a hat trick of being on the opposite sides of each of the 3 APT statements. And I say opposite sides, rather than disagreeing, because there is as you say nuance in all 3.

If you were to suddenly turn around and proclaim I was 100% right all along and you were wrong, people would be within their right to speculate whether you had a eureka moment or if I bribed you or sucked you off, but at the end of the day all it would leave is you having changed your stance for whatever reason.

I thought apt1 was a win, overall. I thought apt2 was as clear a win as it gets. This settlement though, is us publicly accepting the PL were right. What that gains for the club, that's finger in the air stuff.

For the record, I am not 'unhappy' with the outcome. But if the clubs were true to what they claimed in their challenge, then this is a clear departure from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top