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

[Coatigan]

The statement that City are happy that they'll be treated no differently to other clubs going forward also suggests that despite this "extensive detail on how FMV is determined" it seems to have been applied somewhat capriciously depending on who was asking.

That was not a statement, not by the club nor the PL. That is something a journalist said, without attributing it to anyone.

I am not naive, and sure, he got it from somewhere, likely even someone at the club. And yes, it is very telling.

But you/others are attributing the same weight to it as if it had been o
put up on our website by Khaldoon himself, and the difference is absolutely worth highlighting.

 

[Marvin.]

b) - This may be where some of us get confused. If I remember correctly the APT verdict said that three elements of the rules were unlawful so the Premier League applied a quick fix against City's advice. Subsequently the tribunal said the 3 unlawful elements could not be unpicked and therefore all of the APT rules were null and void. City then challenged those amendments (which may or may not fix the issue that the Premier League wanted to address)

I might be wrong but I think people are thinking null and void = illegal.

If i have understood correctly all that's happened is that City are no longer challenging the quick fix as they have met their objectives (I firmly believe partly by the revised Puma sponsorship deal).

From a City perspective there is currently nothing in the rules that they cannot live with so no pint expending more money on a legal challenge

And pursuing this case towards its ultimate conclusion would end up damaging the game and creating enemies that we do not want.

 

[Coatigan]

APT2 is pursuing something having been vindicated by APT1. APT1 much more aggressive move.

I get that, but what's the reputational damage if APT1 went against City. Nothing really, they would have been seen as the club that challenged the rules, but ultimately failed in proving them unlawful. They wouldn't have lost anything, as the rules were already in place anyway. They would have lost costs, but you already exclude that in the APT2 challenge as a consideration. Don't think the reputational damage is that severely different. You could argue the statement released is similar reputational damage, in that the club challenged the rules, but ultimately conceded the rules were fine.

 

[manimanc]

Not at all.

APT1 - reputational damage plus large adverse costs risk
APT2 - almost zero reputational damage given APT1 win and low adverse cost risk - asymmetric risk for the PL and Masters
CAS - defending a case not comparable
115 - defending a case not comparable

What you having for lunch?

Thought I'd break up the Q n A you seem to be receiving at the minute.

 

[waspish]

FMV is a could test, not a would test - too boring to explain (Feb 2024 change deleted)
The burden is no longer on the club to prove FMV (Feb 2024 change deletedView attachment 169064
Shareholder loans now part of APT regime and need to be FMV (Post City APT addition)

Thanks.

 

[TheGhost]

City turned a £20m legal bill into a £500m payday. 25x ROI.

The original Etihad deal agreed still goes to into the club coffers.

Aren’t the FMV calculations used only for PSR purposes?

The PL can’t tell a company how much they can sponsor another company.

 

[willipp]

So in a nutshell the PL keep their APT2 rules and we now have FMV applied fairly to our Etihad deal which allows our huge increase in revenues.

If that is the case, feels like a win for City to me.

 

[cheekybids]

The panel ruling claimed we weren't treated unfairly (not that I agreed at the time).

Do you think we will now suddenly be treated fairly, or even say differently?

Depends what’s in the emails we discovered.

 

[Coatigan]

This is what I can't get my head around. City were challenging the PL's implementation of the rules that were voted for by it's members. Now they're not so something has changed. Wouldn't the other members need to be informed about the PL changing how the rules affects one of it's members?

That was the point I kept making yesterday. Nothing has changed, other than City accepting the rules they previously challenged. Everything else is just imagination. Maybe well palced, maybe misplaced, but still just pure speculation.

 

[Salford_Blue]

Wonder if Draper and Herbert spotted it?

Don't be a silly sausage!!!!

That would affect clicks

 

[Asa's left peg]

We didn't need the rules to be legal - we just needed them to be fair. So you save face - but ....

 

[Keith Moon]

The original Etihad deal agreed still goes to into the club coffers.

Aren’t the FMV calculations used only for PSR purposes?

The PL can’t tell a company how much they can sponsor another company.

True, but now we can use the money to compete.

 

[Salford_Blue]

It’s not a rule change, the PL has no power to unilaterally change the rules.

Whatever they have conceded, it has to be something within their gift.

Remember, this hearing was basically a free hit for City. The PL have to have offered City something worth having or City wouldn’t have settled.

Gift or grift?

 

[give it to gordon]

So in a nutshell the PL keep their APT2 rules and we now have FMV applied fairly to our Etihad deal which allows our huge increase in revenues.

If that is the case, feels like a win for City to me.

Yep if Newcastle think the rules arent fair then Newcastle can challenge them in court

 

[TheGhost]

True, but now we can use the money to compete.

The BIG question is will find enough spare change down the back of the sofa to buy a right back in January

 

[Coatigan]

If I had to guess they had it approved at a level they were happy with before they agreed a settlement not because of it.

Again, this is a point I tried to make yesterday. The outcome of the two rulings re APT1, should have meant the Etihad deal is fair game with or without a settlement. It doesn't add up that the PL could agree to wave through the etihad deal in return for the club accepting the rules that naturally prohibit such a deal. Jast doesn't add up. So whatever the PL might have conceded, I don't see how it can be the Etihad deal.

 

[TheGhost]

That was the point I kept making yesterday. Nothing has changed, other than City accepting the rules they previously challenged. Everything else is just imagination. Maybe well palced, maybe misplaced, but still just pure speculation.

What burden of proof do you want for anything to happen? Do you have to see everything with your own eyes to believe it?

I know that’s a ludicrous argument.

If a hack says it does it become true?

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

I never mentioned leaving a stadium and I have no idea what you think when you leave Anfield. What I think is interesting is that you never consider examples ie evidence but deal with old chestnuts such as "everybody thinks ...", "we all know ...". Just consider many of the actual examples posters have confronted you with, and think about them if you can.

Again, don't agree with a City fan and you immediately support a different team. Such weird behaviour.

Name an example for me to consider and I will reply. Isolated refereeing incidents that had been levelled at me I had already replied to. Someone saying a pen against Spurs we should have got, whilst ignoring Traff should have been sent off. That kind of selective memory is the whole point I am making. I gave an example of a Wolves fan whilst watching our game on holiday. Screaming at the TV and big team bias, whilst you could also hear the Wolves fans giving the ref shit. I was sat there thinking the ref wasn't great, whilst the opposing fan was going ballistic feeling we was favoured. There is my example which again will be ignored, so I am not just saying "most fans" I am giving you a direct example.

I can think, I can answer any nonsense you throw at me whilst my replies are ducked and dodged.

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

Thing is we don’t know all we have officially from the Man City website is “settlement” now what that is no one knows. We can all speculate in a positive or negative..

Obviously, but Stefan hasn't really said anything positively for City in this case, even when it was blatantly obvious before the settlement.

 

[dadnlad]

Yep if Newcastle think the rules arent fair then Newcastle can challenge them in court

they'll have to put big boys pants on first