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

Coatigan said:
What might maybe be more telling is the aftermath, and the reports of clubs clambering to find out more detail of the settlement.

It does leave the club in a bit of a damned either way perception. Either they dropped the challenge because, as the statement says, they accept the rules are valid in which case the PL was right. Or we got something in return that gives us a commercial advantage, in which case we are back to being the dodgy bastards we are often readily portrayed as.

The cleaner thing (note I am not saying 'better') would surely have been to let the challenge play itself out through a ruling that both the PL and ourselves have to live with.
Click to expand...

You seem fixated. You seem to forget the calibre of Khaldoon and Co. We probably got what we should have got originally. Why on earth would be doing anything dodgy considering everything else going on? Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nmc
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
In recent posts you have been favourable to Liverpool and Spurs and you don't think City have had the rough end of the stick from referees, but you don't consider ant referees' decisions to be relevant and rather than consider any real decisions you simply assert that every supporter considers their club to be such a victim. I think you'd find RAWK or Redcafe a more natural home - they don't think very much on there.
Click to expand...
Haha, don’t agree the worlds against city and you’re therefor not a blue. Don’t recall speaking favourable of Spurs? I believe city have had the rough end of the stick from refs at times. Just like every club. The original post I quoted was someone claiming we are shafted every week. Simply not true and it’s what fans of every club thinks when they leave a stadium. If you genuinely believe that city, and city only are targeted by refs then there isn’t much more I can say, I’ll have to leave you and your tin foil hat in peace.
 
bluemonkey71 said:
You seem fixated. You seem to forget the calibre of Khaldoon and Co. We probably got what we should have got originally. Why on earth would be doing anything dodgy considering everything else going on? Really?
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood that last one.
 
Once again the cartel should be very careful what they wish for. If they think they have the right to scrutinise the commercial deal between us and Etihad so they can trash it ad infinitum and use it to. slander, defame and besmirch our owners they are deluded. Because every PL club would have to sacrifice commercial confidentiality for every single deal they do. Do they really want that ?. And it would require new rules in the ever expanding PL handbook.
 
jimharri said:


I'd like to see any club "walk away" from the PL. I'm guessing they're tied in to a very lucrative contract
Click to expand...

The PL agreed to a confidential settlement. They will have to explain to the other 19 teams why they did it. I have no idea if the rules allow it but it will piss them all off that they don’t have all the information and the secrecy. But again the PL must have agreed to it with the settlement with us.
 
Keepingthefaithsince1976 said:
If any fan of any other club asks me I'll just be saying it's a win for City. If they start on with any nonsense it'll be " no no that's wrong. FAKE NEWS...BYE.
Click to expand...
You don't have an orange complexion, do you? And a habit of talking pure shite? Mind you; looking at some of your posts....




JOKING!!!!
 
bluemonkey71 said:
You seem to forget the calibre of Khaldoon and Co.
Click to expand...
You can’t take the calibre of Kaldoon and Co in isolation. That has to be evaluated in conjunction with the calibre of Masters and Co.

Only then can you get a true sense of the likely outcome of this settlement.
 
slbsn said:
I accept that in theory if APT didn't exist, City could sign an above FMV with Etihad and simply accept the adjustment from UEFA for all their tests. In fact, this is broadly UEFA's position as to what happened historically.

In practice, I think City operate on the basis that everything should be FMV and, in their view, always was. Not aware of any contract City openly admit was not FMV but could have missed that historically
Click to expand...
I agree that City haven't set out to blatantly break the rules, and CAS proved that.

But the core of this is how do you define "fair"? As others have said, what's "fair" in a contract between two parties is up to those parties. When Qatar Airways sponsored the weather on Sky, their brand recognition increased significantly so whatever they paid Sky was probably "fair" to them, regardless of any comparison to any similar contract.

Sponsorships like Team Viewer's with united may have been in line with united's expectations but was wildly out of line with Team Viewer's revenue and net profits and they had to terminate it early due to shareholder pressure. Similarly with Chevrolet's sponsorship, which was done in excess of the budget allocated, and for which the exec who negotiated it was sacked. Maybe they were "fair value" to united but they clearly weren't to the sponsor. The PL or UEFA trying to decide what is "fair" on some fairly simplistic grounds simply isn't tenable.
 
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