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

[City Raider]

Can’t keep track of posts, is this a public hearing or closed door? Some dirty linen could be getting aired on both sides.

 

[Keeper!]

In Chelsea's case it's because they haven't won anything. If we were finishing outside the cl places no one would care about our spending.

Not sure about that, American money I would say.

The rags do generate huge amounts of cash sadly that's a fact but Chelsea no, especially since the end of the Abramovich era they have gone backwards.

The sums they spent on transfer fees, wages were outrageous and the way they gave the players in some of those deals 8 and 9 year contract was a piss take in terms of FFP

Simon Jordan may well not like the way we have run our club but to then not do the same to the Chelsea ownership just shows the general hypocritical bullshit.

 

[KS55]

I am sure that I am missing something here, all this talk about unlimited sponsorship and so on but surely all clubs will have to still abide by the UEFA FFP rules. In addition, what about the proposed spending cap in the PL regarding multiples of the lowest teams TV rights.

It seems we are getting shit thrown at us, basically saying we could get billion pound sponsorship deals but how would we be able to spend it anyway?

My feeling is that the ammendment proposed is going to allow the PL to retrospectively go back to existing deals and revalue them or decide themselves the value of future deals.

Only clubs who qualify for UEFA competitions will have to obey their rule which is IAS 24. I don’t see a problem with that, it increases the competitiveness of the PL by allowing non top 6 clubs to close the gap, but the new associated rule will stymie them.
All the press have ignored key issues:
1. There is currently no limit to the size of sponsorship which is not caught by Related or Associated rules. What price a £10bn sponsorship of City by Google? The idea that by challenging the Associated rule City are opening some floodgates is not actually true. City have had what will now be ‘associated’ sponsorships for years, none of which breach IAS 24 or are hopelessly blown up. The 115 charges concern owner funding not the amount.
2. English clubs’ major competition for trophies and players is in big 5 leagues of Europe who are not subjected to ‘Associated’ bollux. Have they not noticed how many top English players are now making their way across the channel. When a cap was placed on the spending of womens’ clubs in England there was a mass exodus to Barcelona, Bayern etc who hoovered up the best. City alone lost half a dozen this way. The PL therefore was on notice, but ignored the danger.
3. You are correct on the point that spending is limited by other rules, so no floodgates will open.
4. Only Kieran Maguire (an academic) has pointed out that the Associated rules appear to be retrospective.

Leaving aside ridiculous attacks on City, it is a very poor showing by the media.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Not one bit of this is pretty. This case, the 115 charges, the points deductions from Everton and Forest, the shite with Leicester, the shocking blatant racism at play with our owners and those of Newcastle.

All this because clubs are having investment and challenging the hegemony of the red tops. That and the so called 'big four' - anyone remember that term.

The PL is fucked and not because of us but because the bullies don't like having their ball taken off them.

If you look at the ethnicity of four of the clubs affected it really says it all , ourselves , Geordies ,Forest and Leicester are from foreign climes with different colour skin , the biggest influence on the Premier league are the Rags ,Dippers Goons all owned by Yanks , and then you look at Chelsea who have admitted issues from a previous owner but are now owned by Yanks and it appears to have all gone quiet regarding their potential punishment
"No room for racism" the much promoted Premier league logo , perhaps they should practice what they preach.
As conspiracy theories go , its provokes some thought.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Not only that. These rules expose the difference in the way business is handled in the US (where the motivators for the rule come from) and in the Arab world. Arab business is built largely on trust. You do business with people you trust and you believe what they say they will achieve so you benefit together. So Mansour would have said to Etihad, we are going to build the world's premier football club, be there at the beginning with us and we will share the benefit together in future years. On that basis, they would be happy to invest more at the beginning in return for more return later.

At the risk of sounding brusque, American business is about how much you can get out of anyone else in the short term.

These rules make no allowance for business practice anywhere other than the US, or more generously, I suppose, the west as a whole. I can see why Mansour thinks they are targeted at businesses built on personal relationships, trust and the long term.

Correct. In Middle Eastern and Asian business, personal and familial inter-relationships are very common both in ownership and management of Companies. In the Gulf States, members of the extended family of the ruling elite are deeply connected with local Companies. This is what’s being specifically targeted here. It’s inherently discriminatory and xenophobic.
And yet in the States, deals that have looked very “convenient” where there are business connections to owners, get a free pass. Liverpool and recently Chelsea have benefitted, the Warrior deal springs to mind.
To those blues wavering about City acting against the EPL, I’d say the club had no choice but to defend itself.

 

[willipp]

Not sure about that, American money I would say.

The rags do generate huge amounts of cash sadly that's a fact but Chelsea no, especially since the end of the Abramovich era they have gone backwards.

The sums they spent on transfer fees, wages were outrageous and the way they gave the players in some of those deals 8 and 9 year contract was a piss take in terms of FFP

Simon Jordan may well not like the way we have run our club but to then not do the same to the Chelsea ownership just shows the general hypocritical bullshit.

And is very likely to see them in similar positions to Forrest and Everton.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yes. JS Mill coined the phrase partly as a rebuttal of Utilitarianism which ignored the needs of minorities. JT gives a perfect example here.

Brexit is another. No attempt to separate the good bits of the EU from the bad.

So not only do we need to be lawyers, accountants, geo-political, marketing & human rights experts to be City fans these days, we have to be philosophers as well.

 

[Keeper!]

And is very likely to see them in similar positions to Forrest and Everton.

Everton blew their investment in a shocking way, Forrest were way off the PL, their owner pumped the money in and they got promotion, they he had to invest again in an attempt to stay up, yet they get penalised, incredible and so wrong.

 

[There is a Light]

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.

Don’t they know the guardians of the game have already tried that??

 

[Judge Roughneck]

Well said. I have time and time again on here: City reply to a paper headline instantly is misrepresented on the next day back page and so it goes on. We would just be doing their job for them. Keeping quiet deprived them of the oxygen of the fire. I know we, as fans, don't like it but the best thing we can do is refuse to participate by not buying papers, not listening and responding to Talksh1te etc. We now have a very large, and growing every day, fan base. Advertisers on these media will start to demand a more positive attitude towards us and for us to be shown more as we are becoming more and more famous. The Boss has already mentioned it, we are the most watched club in the US already and businesses will more and more want to be associated with us and will demand to be shown more.

This latest debacle by the PL is them trying to protect the red shirts and will ultimately fail as it will damage the PL.

This has always been my view. Anything the club say at the moment will be drowned out or twisted. The time to go after our detractors is after City have proved our innocence.

I know Stefan said we are unlikely to win the case and he obviously has much better legal knowledge than I do but my opening would be:
Visit Abu Dhabi have offered us £200m a year to be our sleeve sponsor, is that allowed? (No)
They also want to offer the exact same deal to Fulham, is that OK? (Yes)

He did say that with the caveat that the only thing he or anyone has seen was what had been leaked to the times. There may well be a slam dunk in there from City that no one has seen yet. I hope so anyway.