City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)

Are any of our sponsorship deals APT or alleged to be ? Presumably our argument is that some have been classed as this when they are not or are we just arguing over principle ?
 
jim tolmies perm said:
Yes , incredibly vague as I have commented. This alone should be enough without even going into the witch hunt stuff
Click to expand...
The witch hunt stuff is, I think, important. I am increasingly dismayed and concerned by the declining standards of our press. Increasingly it is interested less and less in reporting the news and more and more in trying to make it. The Mail and the Telegraph are prominent in this trend but the Times, once that bastion of truth and moderation, is also involved. And it is the Times which broke this story. The Times article, and subsequent press coverage, suggests that City are trying to undermine PL attempts to maintain competitive balance by challenging the ATP rule which prevents inflated sponsorship, and to do this the club is prepared to destroy the democratic procedure by which PL rules are made.

Now, we know that opinion has been prepared for this ridiculous coverage by articles which have portrayed Sheikh Mansour and all Arabs as basically dishonest, human rights abusing autocrats. The press coverage is also familiar in that it depends to a large degree on a pack of lies. City are not attacking the democratic process involved in PL rule making, but arguing that this process was not followed. The ATP rule did not get the support of 14 PL clubs and thus did not get to the threshold required to be adopted. It got the support of a majority of clubs but that is not enough according to the rules and so its adoption represents the "tyranny of the majority" rather than the process laid down. Nor are City trying to inflate sponsorship deals and destroy competition. It is the club's contention that this regulation is discriminatory in that it is aimed at specific club(s) (City and Newcastle??) but not at others, which were allowed to enjoy success without regard to any financial regulation. I might add that it is worth questioning what contriibution is made to Profit and Sustainability by making sponsorship deals harder to make while making sure that heavily indebted clubs can still spend way more than other more prudent ones.

Yet the pack of lies has already been put into print and is bearing fruit. If anyone wants proof they have simply to read the comments posted on the BBC article this morning.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Who in the PL decides what is an associated party? Do you know if it is a panel and who makes up that panel?

With regards to you points 6 and 7, is there any evidence that they have or can discriminate against Gulf sates compared to the US ? Or is that just your speculation? Thanks
Click to expand...
I think the rules have changed slightly over the season. I think the club need to prove every associated party transaction is fair value (therefore the underlying assumption is that they won't be). Some independent assessor will then determine if it's FMV.

Talk was that some kind of database would be set up of previous transactions to act as data points for comparison. So a £20m shirt deal would not cause much concern but a £200m would. Of course as the database is anonymous I'm not sure how much nuance would be in that calculation.

The rules are linked previously in the thread but the definition of an associated party is quite broad.

Please note though that you've asked me questions like I'm an expert. I just read bluemoon and regurgitate what I think the experts are saying
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Who in the PL decides what is an associated party? Do you know if it is a panel and who makes up that panel?

With regards to you points 6 and 7, is there any evidence that they have or can discriminate against Gulf sates compared to the US ? Or is that just your speculation? Thanks
Click to expand...
1 The "Board".

2 You are asking us for proof? Presumably the club thinks it has sufficient proof to, at least, make a case. Personally, I would look at the timing of the December 2021 original APT rules, the timing of the failed new APT rules in November 2023 as a start. But then I would have got the AD spy agency to hack the PL's emails and get all correspondence between the PL and certain clubs around those times.
 
ono said:
I thought that it applied to his contract in general meaning that the first one or two payments must have been prior to FFP.
Click to expand...
CAS/UEFA were entitled to look at any transactions from the 2013/14 financial year onwards. Doesn't matter when the contract was signed or the payments commenced. The Mancini contract was rendered time-barred when CAS made its decision on the dare that would apply.
 
ercbkippax said:
Wasn’t the sacking just because Chevrolet bosses thought it wasn’t a worthwhile business decision? Nothing to do with United
Click to expand...
Apparently, he signed a whole raft of regional deals which was contrary to their policy.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.