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

slbsn said:
Not really an opinion. The UEFA is nothing like the APT competition law case. Only someone who hadn't read the decision could conclude that.
Click to expand...
Yet again a put down from you. Do you realise how often you do that? I accept you are very clever, hard to say which you score higher on though, intelligence or smugness. I will carry on being unassuming but rather thick. As you were
 
BringBackSwales said:
Yet again a put down from you. Do you realise how often you do that? I accept you are very clever, hard to say which you score higher on though, intelligence or smugness. I will carry on being unassuming but rather thick. As you were
Click to expand...
I think if you take my responses as a whole they are reasonable and polite. But everyone entitled to their own view.
 
BringBackSwales said:
Yet again a put down from you. Do you realise how often you do that? I accept you are very clever, hard to say which you score higher on though, intelligence or smugness. I will carry on being unassuming but rather thick. As you were
Click to expand...
We have to accept that everyone on here has their own personality and style of posting, and often some of those can grate with ones own personal behaviours.

Take the information, try to look past the personalities sometimes. I think Stefan delivers very knowledgeable, reliable information. He is an industry expert, and we can all be grateful for this.
 
The whole shareholder loan thing is just a red herring, leverage for City to push through the sponsorship deals.
 
slbsn said:
Yes - 115 is very similar to UEFA's case. APT is not.
Click to expand...

APT in essence was at least partly similar to UEFA 2014 (RPs and resulting fair values), was it not? Defending against the assessment of a relationship / association between the club and its AD sponsors and then try to reduce their values as a result?

There were other things, of course, and many differences between the two. But essentially?
 
halfcenturyup said:
APT in essence was at least partly similar to UEFA 2014 (RPs and resulting fair values), was it not? Defending against the assessment of a relationship / association between the club and its AD sponsors and then try to reduce their values as a result?

There were other things, of course, and many differences between the two. But essentially?
Click to expand...
No. UEFA 2014 was a suggestion that MCFC failed to properly declare related parties and therefore that such agreements were subject to FMV and potential adjustment.

APT is a case about whether a regulatory regime extending related parties to a new broader test and rule book was lawful.

Of course, they both touch on the value of EAG to an extent but it doesn't make the cases comparable.
 
Since CAS, City have been mending fences with UEFA. Example: before the final, UEFA asked the club to stop fans booing the anthem — and City backed that.


Same applies with the PL. With the APT cases and the 115, City know the league isn’t going anywhere. You can’t be at war forever with the bodies that run the game.


My guess: the settlement favours City, but silence is part of the strategy. It lets the PL spin the outcome more positively and eases pressure.


On the 115, though, City have been rock-solid from day one. If they’d wanted a deal, it would’ve happened long before we got to where we are. They want full exoneration. The only compromise will be in how it’s presented — allowing the PL some wriggle-room to save face.
 
TinFoilHat said:
Wouldn't surprise me if Masters quits after the 115 verdict and they replace him with Levy....
Click to expand...
I think the next PL chief exec will have to pass a fit and proper independent test by the IFR. Whoever they are, they should probably support someone like Yeovil Town FC (no offence). They will not be another cartel stooge.
 
slbsn said:
No. UEFA 2014 was a suggestion that MCFC failed to properly declare related parties and therefore that such agreements were subject to FMV and potential adjustment.

APT is a case about whether a regulatory regime extending related parties to a new broader test and rule book was lawful.

Of course, they both touch on the value of EAG to an extent but it doesn't make the cases comparable.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Just trying to help a fellow Blue who is arguing with a lawyer. A worthy cause I am sure we all agree :)
 
Manchester33 said:
Since CAS, City have been mending fences with UEFA. Example: before the final, UEFA asked the club to stop fans booing the anthem — and City backed that.
Click to expand...
Example 2 - After the final City not calling out UEFA failing in their duty of care to thousands of City fans. A stony silence that still continues to this day.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Mansour is Associated person with influence is what the PL think, I believe.
 
KS55 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get confused with all this. Abu Dhabi is a small place compared to America so more likely high powered people will know each other.
America a big place so less likely.

Yet no one bats an eyelid when America companies sponsor American own pl clubs.
There was something very dodgy about the rags last few American sponsorships. Car dealership that doesn't sell in the UK. The man behind this deal was sacked a day after the deal was signed.

Football is so fucking bent I wish I could walk away but I can't i love City to much.

I hate the way the American cartel are allowed to destroy our game as our press/media are on their payroll apart from a few.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would we have challenged the rules if we had known the Etihad contract would pass? I don’t think so.

We likely gained something extra, but after getting the Etihad deal approved—and with the Puma deal on the books—we’re nearly immune to APT/FMV scrutiny.

In 2014, as is the case now, the governing body’s independent marketing expert concluded that several of our Abu Dhabi sponsorship contracts were “significantly overvalued,” resulting in two of them being frozen.

Speaking of 2014, I think these Simon Cliff quotes about City’s strategy toward UEFA say something about how City has acted toward the Premier League in the APT case:

“Apply as much pressure as possible, while always giving UEFA a way out.”
“The football association now has the opportunity to avoid the destruction of its rules and organization.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top