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

[Saddleworth2]

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?

1. PL pick up legal costs for APT 2
2. Assurances that the Etihad sponsorship will be treated fairly and get through when it is next submitted
3. Assurances that future deals will be assessed fairly and transparently

 

[Coatigan]

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.

Annoyingly, I slightly saw it but disagreed overall at the time, but now I see it a lot more. Worth reminding (others more than you) I argued it with you then, and I particularly reinforced that when the second ruling came out. But now with this statement, have to admit, it does well appear that point was valid then.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I assume the PL agreed to this being released in the statement, probably with the additional statement that no further comment will be made. This in itself suggests that City had the upper hand in negotiations, and sounds like an admission from the PL that they have been found to have acted unfairly towards us. Not really a good look for the PL if the details end up in the public domain.

Some of the APT1 evidence is in the public statement and it confirms we were treated unfairly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Yes it can and it does. Them's the rules.

 

[slbsn]

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

Because every £1m+ transaction needs to be disclosed and the APT ones are subject to FMV review under an extensive set of rules

 

[Coatigan]

After everything the club has done in terms of legal action over the last few years - I doubt City have simply “accepted the rules”. They have been given an incentive to do so that’s very much in their interests

I have always accepted that, as an unknown likelyhood. Still unknown though, and pretty much certainly unofficial seemingly.

 

[slbsn]

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.

They will not have been able to change the rules or commit unilaterally to do so. Nor would they "trade" an approval of Etihad that wasn't approved by the rules. This is why I believe the Etihad deal was probably approved anyway in advance of the settlement and any proposal re rule changes was simply a commitment to table certain amendments and, perhaps, recommend their implementation whilst leaving the vote to the clubs ie a soft commitment

 

[CC1]

Because every £1m+ transaction needs to be disclosed and the APT ones are subject to FMV review under an extensive set of rules

But wasn’t the issue that the PL were treating “oil states” differently but now aren’t?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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.

I think Stefan understandingly looks at the case in strictly legal terms. It is hard to disagree with his legal analysis. But the reputational battle is much broader.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Buy two rights backs?

Now, that would be nice!

 

[mancboy]

Yes it can and it does. Them's the rules.

whats curious is they never seem to get involved in fmv where transfers are concerned, they could have saved us a fortune on phillips

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I understand this place is a City forum but surely there is room for grown up, objective discussion of these issues.

You should look up the definition of irony Stefan. Your discussion is very often insightful but also patronising and dismissive when it's something you don't accept or haven't thought of. As you've just shown.

 

[Coatigan]

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.

That doesn't stack.

The same rules that block such deals can't be both claimed unlawful and accepted as lawful at the same time. In the same sense that the deal can't suddenly be passed in return for accepting the rules that would stop the deal being passed.

 

[Coatigan]

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

Yes that is my point. And they certainly can't claim to, from that statement.

Which everyone seems to be doing.

 

[CC1]

All of the above was basically dismissed in APT1. As for shareholder loans, it wasn’t clear it was unlawful until the judgment and City’s position changed - it was a tactical instrument.

The statement is meaningless PR and City did not suggest in the hearing or in writing in submissions that they had been prejudiced specifically in the review of transactions. So it wasn’t even a runable argument. The suggestion regarding gulf states was rejected too.

I understand this’ll place is a City forum but surely there is room for grown up, objective discussion of these issues. The ship has sailed on these arguments never more so with the formal settlement and City’s acceptance of the rules as they are.

But not as they were - before we challenged the PL?
Putting aside the complex legal explanations do you think we’re better off than before our first challenge.
The questions is basic because, clearly, we fans are not up to understanding the legal dialogues.

 

[Coatigan]

They will not have been able to change the rules or commit unilaterally to do so. Nor would they "trade" an approval of Etihad that wasn't approved by the rules. This is why I believe the Etihad deal was probably approved anyway in advance of the settlement and any proposal re rule changes was simply a commitment to table certain amendments and, perhaps, recommend their implementation whilst leaving the vote to the clubs ie a soft commitment

Let's speculate that commitment was part of their trade-off, and the PL table such amendments agreed in the settlement.

But the clubs vote against them and the rules stay as they are. Where does that leave City, having challenged the rules, then publicly accepted them without the changes. Can't exactly go challenging them all over again.

 

[slbsn]

You should look up the definition of irony Stefan. Your discussion is very often insightful but also patronising and dismissive when it's something you don't accept or haven't thought of. As you've just shown.

I don't agree. So many of these arguments are simply myopic, often delusional takes.

Such as believing City have sat on a positive 115 decision for months. Or do you no longer believe that?

If I agree with someone, I say so. If I don't I'll explain why. After the tenth time or when someone should know better, I do sometimes go quite blunt because I have already invested enough time explaining why I believe something is wrong.

 

[slbsn]

But not as they were - before we challenged the PL?
Putting aside the complex legal explanations do you think we’re better off than before our first challenge.
The questions is basic because, clearly, we fans are not up to understanding the legal dialogues.

A slightly better position overall. But it is pretty esoteric - FMV is now a "could" test and the burden is not on a club to prove something is FMV. But to get that City have closed the door on the establishing APT is conceptually unlawful (APT1 said it was not) and can never realistically threaten to challenge that concept in the future.

 

[Coatigan]

But not as they were - before we challenged the PL?
Putting aside the complex legal explanations do you think we’re better off than before our first challenge.
The questions is basic because, clearly, we fans are not up to understanding the legal dialogues.

Had we not so aggressively challenged them a second time, I would have said yes.

Most likely, imo we still are, because 3 key items did after all get changed. Maybe the three City wanted, maybe they even just wanted the one changed, anything else was a bonus. Who knows.

But the fact remains, City claimed the changes still left the rules unlawful, and that they have now changed their stance on.

Whatever you or I want to imagine went on behind the scenes, publicly that can only be seen as a result for the PL, because they are the side that got what they claimed. And I am pretty sure the statement doing just that would have been part of Their requirement the settlement.

 

[CC1]

A slightly better position overall. But it is pretty esoteric - FMV is now a "could" test and the burden is not on a club to prove something is FMV. But to get that City have closed the door on the establishing APT is conceptually unlawful (APT1 said it was not) and can never realistically threaten to challenge that concept in the future.

Thanks - I guess it’s up to Newcastle now! But doubt they have the balls