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

[KS55]

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.

The PL have said they, ie Masters or the Chairwoman, will listen to any club that wants to raise the matter, but that certain details will remain confidential.
I’m sure you’re right technically, but since when did the PL abide strictly by their own rules?
Question: what stays confidential and what is the justification for keeping clubs in the dark? Are City getting some advantage denied to others? Murky.

 

[slbsn]

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.

I doubt the deal has changed but we know from the APT decision this:

The deal was structured with a % escalator and then a further escalator in years x to y (say 5-10) of a further % to the value of certain IP rights.

 

[slbsn]

The PL have said they, ie Masters or the Chairwoman, will listen to any club that wants to raise the matter, but that certain details will remain confidential.
I’m sure you’re right technically, but since when did the PL abide strictly by their own rules?
Question: what stays confidential and what is the justification for keeping clubs in the dark? Are City getting some advantage denied to others? Murky.

There is no realistic basis for any club to challenge a settlement by the PL. It will be confidential by design and whether the clubs can force disclosure of it is probably dependent on City waiving the right.

This is all noise and whatsapping the various journalists they know. Happens all the time. It is settled - everyone will move on shortly.

 

[slbsn]

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.

Yes - all laid out in the APT decision

 

[Chris in London]

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. 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.

I'd add to that that the timeline seems to suggest that a number of factors were in play. As you say, it can't be the rejection of the Etihad deal because the arbitration was launched before that happened. That said, City could probably see which way the wind was blowing by that stage. However one of City's specific complaints was about the time it had taken to assess the three challenged deals and it was maybe that delay that was the actual trigger point, though of course by that stage they knew the Feb 24 amendments, with all the "tightening" (ie make it more unlawful) they involved were incoming.

 

[slbsn]

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.

City would just have written in clear terms that deals are submitted under the re-amended rules without prejudice to our position that they are void and in the absence of any other regime to comply with. That would not have weakened their case.

There is no way that the PL just paused the whole regime from Sept 2024 up until the settlement (or envisaged doing that to the decision on APT2). Not practical.

I simply don't believe they would pass EAG through and hope nobody found out.

 

[slbsn]

I'd add to that that the timeline seems to suggest that a number of factors were in play. As you say, it can't be the rejection of the Etihad deal because the arbitration was launched before that happened. That said, City could probably see which way the wind was blowing by that stage. However one of City's specific complaints was about the time it had taken to assess the three challenged deals and it was maybe that delay that was the actual trigger point, though of course by that stage they knew the Feb 24 amendments, with all the "tightening" (ie make it more unlawful) they involved were incoming.

Wind blowing generally yes, but there was no reason to believe EAG would be rejected. When it was deemed too high, the reasons appear reasonable even if City could eventually find a way to rebut.

 

[Sir peace frog]

I may have made this up completely, but was there a thing where we were not allowed to base our sponsorship deals on others that had been allowed ?(hope that makes sense ) i know what i want to say but :)

 

[slbsn]

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.

They would settle APT because it was the commercial thing to do and they have been offered things in the settlement that make it worthwhile. As the decision on 115 is probably not in (I haven't had a firm confirmation since the start of September - I sense they haven't had the decision but can't be sure right now), they have no choice but to decide without the decision in hand. A negative PSR decision has all sorts of issues that are hard to plan for so best to bank what they can commercially and deal with issues (if any) down the line.

I am sure (personal view), that this has no impact on 115 at all.

If City get relegated ultimately, they get relegated, they will have to deal with that if it happens.

I have explained why the idea of retrospective recalculation of PSR based on shareholder loan interest is a futile exercise and would never have happened - fundamentally no club did anything wrong on that topic - they merely followed the rules at the time.

I don't agree with the rest really.

 

[slbsn]

I may have made this up completely, but was there a thing where we were not allowed to base our sponsorship deals on others that had been allowed ?(hope that makes sense ) i know what i want to say but :)

I think you mean we can base it on approved deals? Deals done elsewhere in the databank is one factor, yes

 

[Sir peace frog]

is anyone else having to skip large parts of this because they haven't got a clue what most of this about ?

i start reading people putting arguments forward, people respond to say they've got it wrong,stephan puts them straight and i think nope no idea what anyone is on about :)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

is anyone else having to skip large parts of this because they haven't got a clue what most of this about ?

i start reading people putting arguments forward, people respond to say they've got it wrong,stephan puts them straight and i think nope no idea what anyone is on about :)

This is why people need to focus on the core issue, namely that Stan Colllymore is a woman beating ****.

 

[Sir peace frog]

I think you mean we can base it on approved deals? Deals done elsewhere in the databank is one factor, yes

yes yes ,exactly what i'm on about, thank you,im having a very hard of thinking day(life) :)

Maybe part of us "standing down" we have now been allowed to see those deals and will be able to justify our deals

Hope than makes sense hahaha

 

[slbsn]

yes yes ,exactly what i'm on about, thank you,im having a very hard of thinking day(life) :)

Maybe part of us "standing down" we have now been allowed to see those deals and will be able to justify our deals

Hope than makes sense hahaha

Post APT1, the club already had a right to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis. The club wouldn't be able to see the Databank data - it is confidential but broadly via the experts everybody knows the broad structure and value of the global sponsorship market. The agencies all operate databases of the deals signed around the world.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Post APT1, the club already had a right to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis. The club wouldn't be able to see the Databank data - it is confidential but broadly via the experts everybody knows the broad structure and value of the global sponsorship market. The agencies all operate databases of the deals signed around the world.

i saw the alert from you , shit myself thinking there will be a shaking head emoji and the words "what the actual fuck are you going on about, why do i have to put up with this" underneath

Cheers :)

 

[Brendan110_0]

Post APT1, the club already had a right to respond to the Benchmarking Analysis. The club wouldn't be able to see the Databank data - it is confidential but broadly via the experts everybody knows the broad structure and value of the global sponsorship market. The agencies all operate databases of the deals signed around the world.

Lets hope the databank is more transparent now. Easy to lean on individual decision makers to do something corrupt.

 

[TonyBookEnd]

This all seems very Rumsfeldian

 

[Cobwebcat]

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.

All scared of Newcastle I suppose.

 

[willipp]

i saw the alert from you , shit myself thinking there will be a shaking head emoji and the words "what the actual fuck are you going on about, why do i have to put up with this" underneath

Cheers :)

To be fair that's me with pretty much every post on this subject for the last 48 hours. The more i read, the more i haven't got a fucking clue whats really happened.

 

[johnny crossan]

....If City get relegated ultimately, they get relegated, they will have to deal with that if it happens.

I firmly believe we can all be confident City will only be relegated if we end up in the bottom three without a points deduction.