According to the PL Etihad is an ASSOCIATED party, not a related one. The whole business of ASSOCIATED was introduced to get round the fact that none of our AbuDhabi sponsors was RELATED, ie no common directors etc. They feared Newcastle would benefit from the same situation. I think they had laughably already ruled that Newcastle was not state owned as that would have infringed the PL’s own rules, but the PL wanted the take over. In reality, they are state owned. The usual fudge and mudge.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
Kippax Street 1880
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 7,670
How is he at right full back?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
So you are saying they bent their rules so they didn't have to break their rules?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
That's fair enough. I didn't mean to suggest the PL would have gone to City with the answer, but they could have said they were instead open to considering some new questions that would unblock the situation, could they not? Why would City have revisited the deals whilst this case was ongoing otherwise?
Why would they pause everything? The best thing to do was to get the approval with a convincing argument and leave themselves hostage to fortune waiting until the final determination of APT2 which could have take months from here and well into the 25/26 contract year. You could be right but I'd be surprised if they simply paused all pursuit of any deals pending the determination of APT2. I would be shocked if every club had not continued to submit £1m+ deals for threshold review the whole time including City and Newcastle.
I don't understand what you mean by new questions. Regardless, it is all just speculation. I don't know what they did but I do think it is highly unlikely the PL did anything that could open them up to a complaint from other clubs
Brendan110_0
Well-Known Member
That's their MO (see red tops).
Pablo ZZZ Peroni
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,639
Conjecture on my part but I posted this back in January following the announcement of the long-term Haaland contract:
"Stefan's view about the APT case was that City had evidently extended Etihad for 24/25 on some basis, even if reduced, but the big problem was the 10 year escalator which automatically increased the sponsorhip amount each year where it could potentially double with the CAGR over the 10 years.
If City have (or are about to) resubmit the Etihad deal as they are allowed for re-assessment with something specifically linked to Haaland (long term increasing contract) it's 2 fingers up to the Premier League and they get the new sponsorship through in full irrespective of what the APT panel might rule re APTs..."
Keith Moon
Well-Known Member
City’s legal all-out attack on the ATP rules was triggered by the Etihad deal being blocked. Getting the largest sponsorship deal ever over the line was the main objective. We laid the groundwork for this in ATP1, when the panel found that the decision regarding Etihad had been ‘reached in a procedurally unfair manner’ and must be overturned. I think ATP2 was about keeping the pressure on the Premier League, and as soon as the Etihad deal was approved, that opened the door for a settlement.
Don’t agree with much of that except the last sentence. It is beyond conjecture.
The trigger of the action was very clearly the then proposed Amended Rules not the rejection of EAG. EAG was not deemed in excess of FMV until THREE MONTHS AFTER the arbitration was commenced. On 24 January 2024, City could not have known whether EAG would be approved because City had only just sent the PL the information and Neilsen hadn't even provided their full report to the PL. In fact, arguably, if the primary concern was EAG it would have been an odd move to commence arbitration as it clearly would have made the approval process more challenging not less.
The dates are spelt out in APT1.
Last edited:
Fat Larrys Band
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2018
- Messages
- 298
Stefan, thanks for all your hard work on this thread.
My simple question and I apologise for it!
When I watched you on talksport you mentioned the escalator which increased the amount of the sponsorship over time. My query is does the escalator increase the "new" deal from now and the starting point is higher than if we had not gone to court? And that is where the record sponsorship is calculated.
Sorry if that makes no sense but I am wearing my 25 year old reading glasses and half listening to the Sky news immigration debate.
My simple question and I apologise for it!
When I watched you on talksport you mentioned the escalator which increased the amount of the sponsorship over time. My query is does the escalator increase the "new" deal from now and the starting point is higher than if we had not gone to court? And that is where the record sponsorship is calculated.
Sorry if that makes no sense but I am wearing my 25 year old reading glasses and half listening to the Sky news immigration debate.
TedofChume
Well-Known Member
I know you've done endless research on this and you're a godsend for helping us all (try to) understand. However, in layman's terms simple questions need answering:
- Why on earth would City have this battle over APT, when a negative outcome of the PSR case could kick it all to kingdom come?
- Why would City bother, unless City already knew what was going to happen or doing this could influence / put pressure on the other PSR case?
If the nuclear option of City being booted out of the league happens, then this all means jack sh*t!
When you look at the timing of it all, I can't help but feel this APT issue is pivotal to the PSR outcome and the delay.
If City had successfully applied APT retrospectively RE shareholder loans, clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Leicester, Bournemouth and Brighton would be screwed. Liverpool and United would also be affected. Who do you punish first or do you do it all at the same time, with wild points deductions destroying the league table for one or more seasons? Then there is compensation? The whole house of cards could come tumbling down and the EPL be totally destroyed.
I think City had a very strong case regarding applying these rules retrospectively, simply because it has affected City (both financially and in recruitment) and the EPL couldn't cope with the ramifications if they lost this case, so the EPL have had to grovel to save themselves.
I think this is simple corprate leverage and City's lawyers have played a blinder.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
Which, to get back on my hobby horse, is why I can't believe the PL's defence of why the APT rules are necessary wasn't countered much more strongly.
I still maintain there was nothing to justify the necessity for the rules other than a fear that something that had never happened may happen in the future for some reason that was unclear (or was it?).
The CL knew it, our lawyers knew it, hell even the PL knew it imho but we gave them an easy ride on it.
I still don't understand why. But there must be a reason.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
Again, all fair enough.
Sorry about about using open to questions. I wasn't meaning it literally, but more as a rhetorical device as the antithesis to going to City with an answer. Sorry about that. The kids are studying how to use rhetoric in speech making and debate and I must have absorbed some of it. Not the bit about clarity, though, unfortunately.
At the end of the day, you are right. It's all just speculation.
But, just as you would be surprised if City waited for a re-assessment of Etihad pending resolution of APT2, I would be equally surprised if City had complied with the new rules before resolution as that would weaken the case on their legality, and just as surprised if the PL had opened itself up to additional potential compensation claims by enforcing the new rules before resolution. Especially given their track record on the issue and given the view, that personally I can accept, that the PL were firmly between a rock and a hard place on APT2.
And, on your last point about other clubs finding out about any attempt to settle APT2 by compromising on the Etihad deal, I would suggest that the rules are so cloaked in secrecy and confidentiality it would never happen and, even if it did, one thing APT1 taught us is that, even if you say something explicitly in an email, the arbitrators will happily believe you actually meant something else.
Then again, what do I know? And I am not being facetious here. I know fuck all. Other than as a man on the Clapham omnibus.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
Sorry for all these long questions, but I wake up early and have an insatiable desire to ask questions when I see your posts. Comes with the territory, I suppose.
Anyway, is it unreasonable to suppose the club had a pretty good idea of the way the Etihad assessment was going by January 2024 and so they had a decision to make as to when they should start the arbitration (and assuming the main aim was to get the Etihad deal approved): as quickly as possible, or wait until the deal had been formally blocked?
(Especially as on the 16th, the PL had received Nielsen's first draft assessment and on the 23rd (the day before the arbitration was started) the PL had told City there would be a delay in finalising the assessment. It's almost as if that notification triggered the action.)
In that case, the former would be better strategically?
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,885
As I have always maintained they have with the 115 case as well.
Keith Moon
Well-Known Member
Thank's Stefan, very interesting. Does it say when City first submitted the new Etihad deal for FMV Assessments? PL played the exceptional circumstances card the day before we commenced the arbitration proceedings.
The other clubs will try, nevertheless. The redshirts will not just accept the outcome if, as seems likely, the Etihad deal goes through at 5% annual enhancement. Several have already contacted the PL.
You don't commence arbitration over night and City didn't - it was all well flagged over many months. The whole build up and driver of the case was the Amended Rules. There is no possibility they were expecting a short review period for the largest, most complex sponsorship deal in PL history. Even FAB took from April 2023 to November 2023 to clear (with an adjustment). The theory it was a EAG rejection that caused the arbitration is simply not true. I do think that they submitted the EAG deal under the original rules deliberately (ie didn't want to wait for the Amended Rules) but that re-enforces that City had genuine fears about the extension of some of those rules in the Amended Rules such as "could" and the burden.
Last edited:
I don't agree with that. The clubs have nowhere to go if the PL approves a deal under their rules. Simply no valid basis for a re-review or Rule X case.