They would be in a position they half expect to be in so wouldn't have put much weight on such a commitment. If it happened at all given it was worth very little. So City would have to have agreed to a settlement factoring in that such soft commitments may well be worthless.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Yep. All very twisted. But if we got the 3 key items changed that suited us, then maybe we weren’t bothered about fighting to make them illegal. maybe it’s other clubs that are now going to be affected more than us - but it’s too late for them because they didn’t come forward when it mattered.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.
I’m not sure City have changed their stance on the rules being unlawful because that will now not be tested unless other clubs take up the baton. That they are valid is self-evident because the required number of Premier League clubs voted for them. The statement that City accept this is completely meaningless. Whatever is in the settlement means that City are content that the rules are no longer a threat - perhaps substantial compensation from the Premier League for wrongly blocking the Etihad and other deals by a flawed process played a part?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.
If there are any positives then I would say they include:They would be in a position they half expect to be in so wouldn't have put much weight on such a commitment. If it happened at all given it was worth very little. So City would have to have agreed to a settlement factoring in that such soft commitments may well be worthless.
stopping red cartel owners giving their club interest free loans
Obtaining information in future on any FMV decisions that result in reducing a sponsorship sum.
Maybe, fair treatment of all clubs irrespective of where their owner comes from.
Keith Moon
Well-Known Member
Well, it's a case of 'give me my wallet back or I’ll burn your house down.' City got the wallet back, and PL’s house didn’t burn to the ground. Who’s the winner?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.
Loans are a massive red herring. No real difference between a shareholder loan by a 100% owner and an equity investment. Shareholder loans affect City - more than United. Which is why we originally voted to exclude themIf there are any positives then I would say they include:
stopping red cartel owners giving their club interest free loans
Obtaining information in future on any FMV decisions that result in reducing a sponsorship sum.
Maybe, fair treatment of all clubs irrespective of where their owner comes from.
Other 2 arguable.
Any positives at all then?Loans are a massive red herring. No real difference between a shareholder loan by a 100% owner and an equity investment. Shareholder loans affect City - more than United. Which is why we originally voted to exclude them
Other 2 arguable.
I thought one of the issues that annoyed City was that they couldn’t get information on what the Etihad deal was compared with when it was reduced.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Don’t worry, they’ll still finish 2nd.Feels like a massive win for Arsenal to me .
I've explained already. Quite esoteric improvements in the process and the wording of the rules. Stuff most people wouldn't even notice had the case not happened. Subtle things that reduce the possibility of wrong refusals of FMV approvals. Plus maybe some minor compensation and a win for our legal teamAny positives at all then?
I thought one of the issues that annoyed City was that they couldn’t get information on what the Etihad deal was compared with when it was reduced.
Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 19,168
- Team supported
- Manchester City
This site will need more bandwidth once the 115 result is in
Ric already making serious plans to get the system boosted !
That sounds positive :-)I've explained already. Quite esoteric improvements in the process and the wording of the rules. Stuff most people wouldn't even notice had the case not happened. Subtle things that reduce the possibility of wrong refusals of FMV approvals. Plus maybe some minor compensation and a win for our legal team
They would be in a position they half expect to be in so wouldn't have put much weight on such a commitment. If it happened at all given it was worth very little. So City would have to have agreed to a settlement factoring in that such soft commitments may well be worthless.
That's where I was going with it. The speculation on 'who gained what' unravels pretty quickly!
Can't be the Etihad or significant deals, think that is fair to say, that wouldn't work. It is not a change to the rules, that's not in the PL's power. A soft commitment to put amendments forward, not much of a gain and not a loss the club wouldn't live without. Can't be a commitement to treat the club 'fairly', because that assumes the club was treated unfairly despite the ruling dismissing this, and in either way it can only be treated within the rules accepted by the club.
What are we really left with?
Costs, and control of the perception. Can't really think of much else.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,816
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?
On this specific point, No is the answer. The only deals the PL has the power to assess and re-value if necessary are the deals between a club and an associated party.
(Slight tangent, the associated party rules were substantially introduced because the rules the PL initially adopted didn't cover the relationship between City and Abu Dhabi based companies like Etihad and Etisalat.)
So it is only where the league can say "they are only paying £X because of this relationship between the club and the sponsor." That is where the League can step in and say "the fair market value of the rights this club is selling to that sponsor is £Y, and we will exercise our right to block any deal that is in excess of £Y."
However that right to revalue the contract only arises where it relates to a deal between a club and an associated party. So far as we can tell, there is no association between City and Puma so even if they had been willing to pay City £5bn to be a sleeve sponsor on the away shirt only, the League would not have had the right to re-value that contract.
What we know is that the club has to submit any deal for assessment before they can enter into it, but that does not mean the League go straight to the FMV stage. The assessment process is (a) to determine whether the sponsor is a related party and (b) if so, only then to determine what the fair market value of the transaction would be. As far as we know, the Puma deal has gone through, so either the League accepted that Puma was not a related party, or accepted that the deal was for a fair market value. I don't know, but I assume the former.
And potential compensation but as I previously explained this was never very material.That's where I was going with it. The speculation on 'who gained what' unravels pretty quickly!
Can't be the Etihad or significant deals, think that is fair to say, that wouldn't work. It is not a change to the rules, that's not in the PL's power. A soft commitment to put amendments forward, not much of a gain and not a loss the club wouldn't live without. Can't be a commitement to treat the club 'fairly', because that assumes the club was treated unfairly despite the ruling dismissing this, and in either way it can only be treated within the rules accepted by the club.
What are we really left with?
Costs, and control of the perception. Can't really think of much else.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
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
Delaney said this (I know but bear with me): "It has also been agreed that City will step back from the challenge over interest-free shareholder loans, which had the potential to cause chaos for the Premier League."
Do you think he knows what he is talking about? I only ask, because the NYT also said this: "The compromise has avoided the nuclear outcome of the rulebook being ripped up entirely."
Is this just journalistic drama, or was there a risk that the PL could have ended up in big trouble over this?
City Raider
Well-Known Member
Will this have been agreed at Khaldoon/Soriano level or done through the lawyers? If it was through the latter, the fact the prem have settled could be viewed as a soft signal in terms of 115. They knew they were outmatched.
...and a win for our legal team
Can we put them on the pitch instead?
Establish if APT (as opposed to RP) - the PL summarise well: "What constitutes an Associated Party of a Club is set out in detail in the Premier League Rules (Rule A.1.25) and includes third parties that are in the same group of companies as a Club, have common ownership or board members with a Club, or are materially influenced by the same party as a Club. So as to ensure no circumvention, in addition to the standard submission of APTs, all Club deals with non-Associated Parties with an average annual value of over £1 million or, if lower, 5% of the Club’s annual turnover (known as "Threshold Transactions") must also be submitted to the Board for an assessment as to whether they are APTs or otherwise have not been conducted at arm’s length. If so, the deals must be subject to an FMV Assessment."On this specific point, No is the answer. The only deals the PL has the power to assess and re-value if necessary are the deals between a club and an associated party.
(Slight tangent, the associated party rules were substantially introduced because the rules the PL initially adopted didn't cover the relationship between City and Abu Dhabi based companies like Etihad and Etisalat.)
So it is only where the league can say "they are only paying £X because of this relationship between the club and the sponsor." That is where the League can step in and say "the fair market value of the rights this club is selling to that sponsor is £Y, and we will exercise our right to block any deal that is in excess of £Y."
However that right to revalue the contract only arises where it relates to a deal between a club and an associated party. So far as we can tell, there is no association between City and Puma so even if they had been willing to pay City £5bn to be a sleeve sponsor on the away shirt only, the League would not have had the right to re-value that contract.
What we know is that the club has to submit any deal for assessment before they can enter into it, but that does not mean the League go straight to the FMV stage. The assessment process is (a) to determine whether the sponsor is a related party and (b) if so, only then to determine what the fair market value of the transaction would be. As far as we know, the Puma deal has gone through, so either the League accepted that Puma was not a related party, or accepted that the deal was for a fair market value. I don't know, but I assume the former.
We know Puma is neither an AP or RP so there is no PL FMV test but it must be FMV to be included in the full UEFA assessment.
Regardless, the idea Puma (an unconnected public company) gave City a non-FMV contract is just yet another conspiracy theory. The truth is far simpler.
Yep. All very twisted. But if we got the 3 key items changed that suited us, then maybe we weren’t bothered about fighting to make them illegal. maybe it’s other clubs that are now going to be affected more than us - but it’s too late for them because they didn’t come forward when it mattered.
Sure but we would have got those three items following APT1 so there would ahve been no need to challege them again. And, we would have then also had pretty clear perception on our side, following that second verdict!
Surely you can see that my points aren't negative or anti-city as made out, but that the thing itself is just a bit - inconsistent.