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

[The Future’s Blue!]

Have we made more piss boil?

Lovely.

 

[daveoswald]

Steady on. He is the person looking to be chosen to represent Liverpool.

Why on earth would he take up a cause so likely to be popular in certain districts? Beats me.

I mean. What more do you want to know?

That he recently wrote a document that begins;

"My politics comes from two places: the trade union movement and the terraces of Anfield."?

That he has a controversial history?

How about the recentish history of the Labour party in Liverpool?

Nice user name when i joined a couple of years ago i was thinking about using Ptolemy's Barnet.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I don’t think city would be daft enough to leak any document, to anyone, ever.

Me neither.
I thought it was made very clear in the end of season address that, from the bottom to the very top of this club, we do things right.
Khaldoon seemed to go out of his way to stress this.

 

[Matt Diablo]

Really ??

Fantastic - Civil war it is . . .

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

I was staggered to see Henry Winter feature so prominently in the Treble documentary. He's stuck the knife in for years, and there he is, waxing lyrical about our amazing achievement. This week he's back to a hatchet job. The fork tongued double speaking two faced ****.

The same Henry Winter who ghost-wrote the autobiographies of Dalglish, Gerrard and John Barnes, join the dot's.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Long time reader....first time poster. I'm expecting to be branded a rag any moment!!! Bring it on.

It occurs to me that City and Newcastle could simply broker a mutually beneficial arrangement by which Etihad sponsor Newcastle and a Saudi equivalent sponsors City. It would boil an ocean of urine!

Great as banter, but have a serious think about the implications of what you are saying.
It does not compute.
1. We are not related parties and that goes for Newcastle too. We have no influence over these third party sponsors.
2. What benefit is it to Etihad for us to get them to sponsor someone else, that isn’t winning 4 in a row. Not the same value for money that they currently get.

I know you’re joking but seriously!
Not nearly as smart as it first sounds.

 

[TShed]

if love to see a City protest march aimed at the haters to show how us blues stick together despite the relentless spiteful bile being thrown at us.
A good old March down Deansgate and ending at St Peter’s square with maybe a speaker or 2 and a good singsong would be a wonderful opportunity to show our togetherness and resilience anyone else up for this?

Peterloo?

 

[cheekybids]

Just had a mooch on RAWK.

They’re frantically trying to sort out a situation where them, the rags, Arsenal and Spurs either

a) refuse to take part and “go somewhere else and start our own league up”.

Or

b) all flounce off from the PL and join the EFL.

Even their ideas mean more.

Pick b……

 

[halfcenturyup]

Could be worse…

And, inevitably, it will be.

 

[TedofChume]

This should help club's image, sigh. Seems so unnecessary to me. Unless they've got real dirt, which I doubt. Exhausting being a City fan.

Is fair market value a bad thing, really? Or is it not being used fairly?

"fair marker value" is just a phrase that sounds good. There is no definition of it In the EPL rulebook in any season since it was first memtioned. So it is completely arbitrary, at the behest of the third party company appointed to assess it called Nielsen. We've no idea how the EPL briefed Nielsen when they were appointed.

So "fair market value" could be assessed as simply divide the sponsorship deal by the average attendance, if it's above the EPL average it's unfair or divide it by the number of Facebook followers a club has, or divide it by the points they get and so on.

I'm sure a more convoluted calculation has been done, but without any analysis as to whether the calculation is at all appropriate or preferential to some clubs over others.

Two things stand out to me:

According to Brand Finance, City's sponsorship deal is the best bang for buck deal in Europe and has been for over 10 years now. They site the Emirates sponsorship deals with Arsenal and Real Madrid as a really poor ROI as well.

Manchester United are a club in decline, they haven't won a major trophy for over 10 years, and their Facebook following has plummeted from 120m to 80m in the same period. Then they've signed the biggest shirt sposorship deal in the history of English football with TeamViewer..One year in Teamviewer tried to renegotiate the deal because they weren't getting the return they exoected.ie they paid an inflated price.

Yet it's City's deal that is under scrutiny?