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

[slbsn]

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

It won't be transparent. It is confidential. The clubs have good information from various agencies anyway

 

[Cobwebcat]

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

Presumably if some of the settlement involved the PL giving City money they had lost on sponsorship deals (if that was the case) then that money is now counted towards our PSR (as opposed to legal costs) ?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

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.

The individual clubs may have just been following the rules re interest free loans and therefore not culpable, however we may have argued the PL were culpable and liable because the rules were unlawful. So I hope we used the threat of this against the collective entity to have the EAG deal plus the 'elevator' approved. There had to be some other consequences of the unlawful rules beyond merely the roll back to previous versions. We had them over a barrel and they knew it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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 :)

Naah, you are OK. He saves that for my questions :)

 

[dublinblue12]

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

The more disgraced wife beating doggers that cry about us the better, exactly the kind of people you don't want to be fighting your corner. Who next conor mcgregor not happy about the decision fuck them

 

[Keith Moon]

Yes - all laid out in the APT decision

When you look at the bigger picture, the APT/FMV rules were clearly designed to control the scale of our sponsorship deals. The people behind these regulations are the same competitors who had already tried to block or reduce our sponsorships through UEFA’s RP rules. The deal they have objected to the most – and publicly criticized most heavily – is our agreement with Etihad. It was therefore fairly obvious from the start that a new £1.7B deal would encounter obstacles, which is why we examined the gaps in the rules and how we might challenge them in order to ultimately get the deal approved. When they later moved to tighten the rules, that was, as you pointed out, most likely the trigger.

For us, the main objective has always been to secure full approval of the new Etihad deal, while for our opponents, it has consistently been about blocking or reducing that same deal. After we succeeded in finalizing the agreement and pushing through adjustments to the regulations, there was no longer any need to abolish the rules; instead, they now serve as a preventive measure. So for me, the settlement is a win for City.

It is rather ironic that both the APT and the 115 case are essentially domestic reruns of UEFA vs. City in 2014 and 2020

 

[Chris in London]

The individual clubs may have just been following the rules re interest free loans and therefore not culpable, however we may have argued the PL were culpable and liable because the rules were unlawful. So I hope we used the threat of this against the collective entity to have the EAG deal plus the 'elevator' approved. There had to be some other consequences of the unlawful rules beyond merely the roll back to previous versions. We had them over a barrel and they knew it.

The objections to the elevator were wrong on a number of levels

 

[GH64]

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.

Agreed, I’ll edit the original post.

 

[Centurions]

The simple fact that City have had the majority of their legal costs settled by the PL, tells us who the "winners" are in this dispute.

Winners don't pay costs, losers do.

Is that just made up nonsense from social media or is there a reliable source for it?

 

[Lord Blue]

It won't be transparent. It is confidential. The clubs have good information from various agencies anyway

a genuine question Stefan, regarding any and all businesses from Abu Dhabi.

Would the Premier league see these businesses as falling under one of APT/RPT by default?

Would the Premier League have to establish the link?

Would City have to establish the absence of a link?

 

[slbsn]

a genuine question Stefan, regarding any and all businesses from Abu Dhabi.

Would the Premier league see these businesses as falling under one of APT/RPT by default?

Would the Premier League have to establish the link?

Would City have to establish the absence of a link?

Under these rules a lot of AD businesses would be captured yes. PL would have to establish something as AP if City didn't accept they were APs.

 

[slbsn]

Is that just made up nonsense from social media or is there a reliable source for it?

Nobody knows

 

[slbsn]

When you look at the bigger picture, the APT/FMV rules were clearly designed to control the scale of our sponsorship deals. The people behind these regulations are the same competitors who had already tried to block or reduce our sponsorships through UEFA’s RP rules. The deal they have objected to the most – and publicly criticized most heavily – is our agreement with Etihad. It was therefore fairly obvious from the start that a new £1.7B deal would encounter obstacles, which is why we examined the gaps in the rules and how we might challenge them in order to ultimately get the deal approved. When they later moved to tighten the rules, that was, as you pointed out, most likely the trigger.

For us, the main objective has always been to secure full approval of the new Etihad deal, while for our opponents, it has consistently been about blocking or reducing that same deal. After we succeeded in finalizing the agreement and pushing through adjustments to the regulations, there was no longer any need to abolish the rules; instead, they now serve as a preventive measure. So for me, the settlement is a win for City.

It is rather ironic that both the APT and the 115 case are essentially domestic reruns of UEFA vs. City in 2014 and 2020

I suggest you read the APT1 decision. Most of the above is popular on here but isn't really what happened.

City wouldn't have agreed a settlement if they didn't get something of value from agreeing it.

The APT situation is nothing like UEFA vs City. Read the APT decision before misleading people.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Given it seems like we have won here but seem to have agreed to say nothing about it (thereby no one being able to say City have won) I assume we can expect the same with the 115, City win but agree not to publicly announce this so as to save the faces of the incompetent cunts at the PL

 

[BringBackSwales]

I suggest you read the APT1 decision. Most of the above is popular on here but isn't really what happened.

City wouldn't have agreed a settlement if they didn't get something of value from agreeing it.

The APT situation is nothing like UEFA vs City. Read the APT decision before misleading people.

That’s your OPINION of his OPINION . Crikey you don’t half have a superior tone

 

[johnny crossan]

Given it seems like we have won here but seem to have agreed to say nothing about it (thereby no one being able to say City have won) I assume we can expect the same with the 115, City win but agree not to publicly announce this so as to save the faces of the incompetent cunts at the PL

Khaldoon is bursting to give tongue I believe.

 

[HelloCity]

The simple fact that City have had the majority of their legal costs settled by the PL, tells us who the "winners" are in this dispute.

Winners don't pay costs, losers do.

I don't believe this to be confirmed fact, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was still actually true.

 

[BringBackSwales]

The simple fact that City have had the majority of their legal costs settled by the PL, tells us who the "winners" are in this dispute.

Winners don't pay costs, losers do.

Agreed Dodge

 

[johnny crossan]

..The APT situation is nothing like UEFA vs City. Read the APT decision before misleading people.

UEFA 's charges were essentially an attempt to punish City for benefactor funding disguised as legit sponsorship just like 115.

 

[pride in battle]

The simple fact that City have had the majority of their legal costs settled by the PL, tells us who the "winners" are in this dispute.

Winners don't pay costs, losers do.

Is that fact the P.L paid the majority of legal costs ?