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

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

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.

I think we are all trying to see what exactly City settled for, and I'd welcome your comments on my (rather tentative) view. City accepted the current APT rules as valid and binding (but not necessarily legal as Martin Samuel points out) and so no rule change is involved. This seems a conclusive win for the PL but I don't think City ever denied the need for some regulation in this area. What City objected to was the perceived bias - when the rules were introduced, their use to block the Etihad deal and others - and so it was the process rather than the rules which the club wanted to change. Whether City achieved this is of course unclear - whether it was a brutal threat to cost the PL a packet in legal fees every time they blocked a deal or if it was the use of more informed and experienced assessors of FMV - but according to (unofficial) sources City seem certain they will receive much fairer treatment and, in particular, the Etihad deal will be allowed. It's interesting to ask if any other APTs are expected.

One other question! When the current rules were passed, am I right in thinking that the PL agreed to subject all sponsorship deals to a FMV test? If so, was the Puma deal assessed, and with what outcome?

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

If you cant see that my initial appraisal of a score draw/narrow win for City was justified all along, I can't help you. City have got certain concessions in the rules but there is a very heavy APT regime that is only very subtly more favourable in 2025 compared to 2024. The optics are useful and forced the PL to settle APT2 to avoid risk but most fans of other clubs have no idea if City won or lost the whole APT chapter.

Obviously, I can't see the connection with 115 that everyone on here claims so perhaps I am missing something very important. Nobody has articulated in any convincing way to me but they could turn out to be correct.

I was listening where you said score draw and didn't state a narrow win. Then it came out further and reported by all that city won (other than the prem) you turned to a narrow win. Despite all the reporting of it. 115 I take it your view with it not having connection, that isn't an issue. But again, there is no talk of the settlement being positive for City really, despite the feeling being otherwise.

 

[Coatigan]

Stefan rarely comes out and says anything is a result for City. It might be to not look like he is biased or swings too far in our favour. This happened after APT1 where he called it a score draw LOL. If this wasn't a win for City then they wouldn't have backed down. We have thrown our weight about and made the prem look silly, publicly, on more than one occasion now. Most media outlets are reporting it as a success for City.

But it IS also true that most people seem to be more concerned with the perception, than the outcome.

Which is clearly the opposite with the club, fwiw.

 

[SatOnTheWall]

What would City want from the PL that would make them think it was worth settling? What would City ask for? What could the PL offer?

Any thoughts anyone?

 

[Keith Moon]

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

Haha, if we get to count the entire Etihad deal, it covers the cost of Haaland’s 9.5-year contract and still leaves £250m to spend on other things — but a right-back in January? Don’t be silly!

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

Feels like a massive win for Arsenal to me .

 

[mcfcphil]

Obviously, I can't see the connection with 115 that everyone on here claims so perhaps I am missing something very important. Nobody has articulated in any convincing way to me but they could turn out to be correct.

Agree it’s hard to see how APT and 115 are connected in a factual/legal way, but they must both contribute to the overall conditions that influence how City and PL approach each situation.

For example, let’s say APT2 was a free hit for City and we essentially left the case on simmer waiting for the hearing in October (no point settling before you need to if you hold all the cards).

Let’s also say City received the outcome of 115 last week and we’re now in a standstill period for factual checks etc.

If City have scored a resounding victory in 115, it’s not inconceivable the club feel it’s now time to bring the period of litigation to an end and settled APT2 (while also getting something else into the bargain from PL).

At some point, the war needs to end. If City have won 115 (big assumption), then I doubt they would want to continue with APT2.

 

[CC1]

a) they do affect City
b) City do not say they are illegal and they likely are not in any event post what APT1 said

Could you explain your comments rather than leaving it in the air? How do they affect City?
If the rules are not “illegal” as such, are they not “invalid” & open to further scrutiny? Just going off Martin Samuel’s piece

 

[CC1]

We can not change the basic fact that City challenged the new rules again, and were adamant and confident they were still unlawful. That can not be re-written now. It's not like they claimed, hey the good effort PL, the rules are almost there but we'll have another free hit go at changing them further to see what happens. The club were pretty clear on that they thought the changes were superficial and the rules remained unlawful, and they would prove that for the second (or rather third) time.

Maybe the club got what they wanted, maybe they accepted what it is because they knew they never could, and this was some level of a high ground stance. We might never know.

I am not wrong in saying that.

Well I guess nobody knows anything - it’s all guesswork

 

[Cobwebcat]

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?

I think that’s a valid question. My guess is the rules haven’t changed to allow City’s Etihad deal to fully pass if that is what you are getting at.

The PL use an independent organisation to assess FMV. If City have produced good evidence to influence either the company’s initial assessment or the PL’s final decision, then no rules need changing to allow that.

@slbsn would know if he is still answering questions.

 

[Marvin.]

What would City want from the PL that would make them think it was worth settling? What would City ask for? What could the PL offer?

Any thoughts anyone?

The PL blocked new sponsorship arrangements with Etihad Airways and First Abu Dhabi Bank. If these blocks have been lifted, or concessions made in regard to these arrangements, then that could make it worth settling.

 

[sheikmedick]

Feels like a massive win for Arsenal to me .

Do you want to visit rawanda :)

 

[Cobwebcat]

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 out up on our website by Khaldoon himself, and the difference is absolutely worth highlighting.

I honestly think people understand the difference and are reading between the lines.

 

[thegoatsthegoat]

But it IS also true that most people seem to be more concerned with the perception, than the outcome.

Which is clearly the opposite with the club, fwiw.

Not the perception, just the facts. City will feel as if they won, as per previous statements.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yep. City and the PL have obviously had extensive without prejudice meetings to settle APT. It seems reasonable to suppose those same discussions included 115 which would also perhaps explain the “delay”.

The Judges may not have published their statement on 115 yet but City and the PL will be having constant discussions about how the aftermath of the decision is managed from a comms and PR perspective.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

The only thing I want to know is what we can do today that we couldn’t yesterday?

 

[halfcenturyup]

If you cant see that my initial appraisal of a score draw/narrow win for City was justified all along, I can't help you. City have got certain concessions in the rules but there is a very heavy APT regime that is only very subtly more favourable in 2025 compared to 2024. The optics are useful and forced the PL to settle APT2 to avoid risk but most fans of other clubs have no idea if City won or lost the whole APT chapter.

Obviously, I can't see the connection with 115 that everyone on here claims so perhaps I am missing something very important. Nobody has articulated in any convincing way to me but they could turn out to be correct.

You can't help me, either. But, tbf, God knows you have tried :)

 

[Scaley]

The only thing I want to know is what we can do today that we couldn’t yesterday?

Buy two rights backs?

 

[Coatigan]

…and it’s that “something” that’s driving all the speculation and confusion. Everyone is dying to know especially as the statement gave no clue. We either trust the usual journalist sources like Mike Keegan (who was very quick to issue his piece) or accept there is a chance we will never know and trust City to do what is best for the club.

This.

 

[give it to gordon]

I dont understand FMV.
Does it include sporting achievements ? City have broken record after record, so there is nothing to compare City against.
I guess it will cover turn over.
FMV clearly doesn't cover the companies good standing. Standard Charter for example, a good money laundering bank for gun running. The pl are happy for that to sponsor a club.
FMV on rags sponsorship, a car company that does sell cars in the UK, another sponsor who went bust, and now a sponsor that doesn't sell anything.

So i really dont understand how FMV is worked out, it clearly doesn't cover dodgy sponsors.

City are by far the most successful club in the pl for the last decade so naturally should be top dog with top sponsorships