City launch legal action against the Premier League

[halfcenturyup]

:)

@Gorton_Tubster killing threads since 2024.

 

[KS55]

We’ve got a brand new arena worth £2billion

Not ours.

 

[Coatigan]

Does that mean City can sell the new hotel in the future, and any additional hotel or building City build on the Etihad Campus in the future, and use that money for the club? ;-)

Yes. To ourselves, too.

The Sheikh's already on it, buying up all that discarded kalzip.

 

[MadchesterCity]

The premier sieve

This deserved more exposure

 

[Blue Citizen]

Here is my understanding of the current situation:

The Etihad deal was at £67.5M.
City apparently negotiated a new deal with Etihad at £80-85M.
Under the old Related Party rules, Etihad would not be deemed as a related party transaction, therefore the sponsorship amount would not be contested.
Under the new Associated Party Transactions, Etihad would be considered an Associated Party, therefore the PL would have a freehand on subjectively determining the value of the new deal.

City are contesting the replacement of the Related Party rules (established accounting definitions) by the newly invented ATP rules.

Aside from all that, City are well within their rights to revise the Etihad deal. The Sponsor valued City's front of shirt sponsorship alone, at £72.8M at the end of last season, so £80-85M looks easily fair value considering the other additional naming rights.

 

[waspish]

Here is my understanding of the current situation:

The Etihad deal was at £67.5M.
City apparently negotiated a new deal with Etihad at £80-85M.
Under the old Related Party rules, Etihad would not be deemed as a related party transaction, therefore the sponsorship amount would not be contested.
Under the new Associated Party Transactions, Etihad would be considered an Associated Party, therefore the PL would have a freehand on subjectively determining the value of the new deal.

City are contesting the replacement of the Related Party rules (established accounting definitions) by the newly invented ATP rules.

Aside from all that, City are well within their rights to revise the Etihad deal. The Sponsor valued City's front of shirt sponsorship alone, at £72.8M at the end of last season, so £80-85M looks easily fair value considering the other additional naming rights.

Yep that's about spot on..

 

[Coatigan]

Here is my understanding of the current situation:

The Etihad deal was at £67.5M.
City apparently negotiated a new deal with Etihad at £80-85M.
Under the old Related Party rules, Etihad would not be deemed as a related party transaction, therefore the sponsorship amount would not be contested.
Under the new Associated Party Transactions, Etihad would be considered an Associated Party, therefore the PL would have a freehand on subjectively determining the value of the new deal.

City are contesting the replacement of the Related Party rules (established accounting definitions) by the newly invented ATP rules.

Aside from all that, City are well within their rights to revise the Etihad deal. The Sponsor valued City's front of shirt sponsorship alone, at £72.8M at the end of last season, so £80-85M looks easily fair value considering the other additional naming rights.

Then if there is any truth to the 'suing for loss' reports, City could in theory claim loss of 12-18m, if the initial hearing determines the rules illegal.

 

[Keeper!]

Just read the latest Mailonline article on us with Simon Jordan's quotes from his podcast about our PL case next week, again I was amazed at the amount of comments actually supporting us.

I actually think the tide is beginning to turn and if we win this case I think you will see a huge change in the league.

 

[BlueRockape]

Quick sell our training ground to ourselves.

This getting like the Ministry of silly walks.

Madrid did it

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Completely missed this yesterday

Have to laugh at the PL desperately trying to play financial wac-a-mole. It must be becoming increasingly difficult to find ways to only hamper specific clubs.