City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[Centurions]

Is there a template anywhere as to how you achieve FMV, cos if there is I would love to see it.

Yes, although only the red tops and Spurs have access to it.

 

[dadnlad]

Is there a template anywhere as to how you achieve FMV, cos if there is I would love to see it.

Gary neville the football economy expert is who you are looking for

 

[TheThirdDeano]

I might be wrong, but I think people who don’t like you being able to interfere with your business isn’t actually a good idea and that city have a point to challenge it

 

[salfordbluetrue]

But that’s just APT which is already in place

No the difference is, related parties, the media know they have lost because every time they mention City suing they talk about related parties, which was the vote in 2023.The vote in February was all income related or not. Which may bring the PL into dispute with UEFA being more draconian it would harm all English teams, if it were applied evenly.

 

[Impeccable One]

So basically City want our Sponsors ie Etihad etc to be able to pay as much as they want but the Premier League want it regulated so the sponsorship will be market value and not inflated ?
If so I can't see how City will win the case ?

Mate, if a sponsor is willing to pay an amount, then by default, that IS market value, to them.

PL want to enforce THIER OWN version of market value, supported by a potentially biased 3rd party, when neither of them has ever sponsored a PL club ?

 

[give it to gordon]

Does this happen in any other sport or business where you rivals can say how much your sponsorship is worth ? It seems totally bizarre to me.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Mate, if a sponsor is willing to pay an amount, then by default, that IS market value, to them.

PL want to enforce THIER OWN version of market value, supported by a potentially biased 3rd party, when neither of them has ever sponsored a PL club ?

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Clearly, no-one wants related parties (in the widest sense of the term) paying ridiculous amounts as sponsorship to give an unfair advantage to a club. But, on the other hand, I can't think of a single deal in the PL which has been so far above what was expected that it requires such drastic, onerous and clearly discriminatory rules to prevent it happening. There are plenty of ways of ensuring fair values without all the APT nonsense.

Yes, all fans complain about other clubs' sponsorships and, yes, the Etihad sponsorship could have been "overstated" when it was first entered into, but who can deny it has been good value in the longer term. And therein lies the problem. The PL is taking a short term, American, capitalistic view to sponsorship. It is only worth what it is currently worth. And the club's AD sponsors are taking a long term, partnership view to sponsorship. A journey based on trust, if you will, that both parties will be adequately rewarded during the agreement.

Neither approach to valuation is wrong, but they are incompatible and that is the problem we have now.

Edit: The South African shareholders of our luxury group, who I got to know quite well, had an expression that helped the first generation of billionaire to generate their wealth: "the joint creation of wealth and a fair sharing of that". A little clumsy, if more elegant, in English, but it reminds me of the way I think companies do business in the ME, and are doing with City and the wider CFG.

 

[bluemanchester]

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Clearly, no-one wants related parties (in the widest sense of the term) paying ridiculous amounts as sponsorship to give an unfair advantage to a club. But, on the other hand, I can't think of a single deal in the PL which has been so far above what was expected that it requires such drastic, onerous and clearly discriminatory rules to prevent it happening. There are plenty of ways of ensuring fair values without all the APT nonsense.

Yes, all fans complain about other clubs' sponsorships and, yes, the Etihad sponsorship could have been "overstated" when it was first entered into, but who can deny it has been good value in the longer term. And therein lies the problem. The PL is taking a short term, American, capitalistic view to sponsorship. It is only worth what it is currently worth. And the club's AD sponsors are taking a long term, partnership view to sponsorship. A journey based on trust, if you will, that both parties will be adequately rewarded during the agreement.

Neither approach to valuation is wrong, but they are incompatible and that is the problem we have now.

Edit: The South African shareholders of our luxury group, who I got to know quite well, had an expression that helped the first generation of billionaire to generate their wealth: "the joint creation of wealth and a fair sharing of that". A little clumsy, if more elegant, in English, but it reminds me of the way I think companies do business in the ME, and are doing with City and the wider CFG.

You wrote;
"Clearly, no-one wants related parties (in the widest sense of the term) paying ridiculous amounts as sponsorship to give an unfair advantage to a club"

Sponsorship is just the latest attack on the best run club in the world. An attack to keep City in check and not let them create a gap that the red tops cannot bridge. Where was this curtailment in the 80s and 90s when the best supported clubs voted to take away the visiting clubs share of gate receipts or the shareout of TV money when the Premier League started. They were not worried about an unfair advantage when it was in their favour. City have to take on and defeat this gang of American owners and their pet poodle, trophyless Spuds, otherwise the game will change forever if they win and no other club will get near them with the regulations they will introduce in their favour. The biggest mystery is how other club owners and supporters don't see this.
I would argue it is not an unfair advantage as it is a business plan that has worked from the outset of the takeover when the owners said they will work hard to make City the best club in the world. Its the old saying, the harder I work the more successful I am. City worked hard and the red tops became so complacent, they thought their stranglehold would never end, till it jumped up and bit them on their axse.

 

[dadnlad]

they thought their stranglehold would never end, till it jumped up and bit them on their axse.

they never took into account Riley Webb and twatenburg retiring and the present incumbents not being to their standard

 

[WRicko]

No the difference is, related parties, the media know they have lost because every time they mention City suing they talk about related parties, which was the vote in 2023.The vote in February was all income related or not. Which may bring the PL into dispute with UEFA being more draconian it would harm all English teams, if it were applied evenly.

Sorry what are you on about