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

[salfordbluetrue]

Hilarious as to why discuss this to an unknown football fanzine rather than break it to the msm.

If you had been paid for your opinion more times in the past week, than you have in the last 10 years, would you milk the donkey?

 

[halfcenturyup]

On this point he maybe right, mind you it does not take a genius, to work out that the press has been lying about the new rule, it makes no difference to Newcastle, so why should they want to support City

The rules were introduced precisely to stop Newcastle and, as they say in their article, City and Newcastle are the only two state-owned clubs in the league .......

 

[salfordbluetrue]

The rules were introduced precisely to stop Newcastle and, as they say in their article, City and Newcastle are the only two state-owned clubs in the league .......

You may know more, but i am under the impression City`s case is about the vote in February, that changed non related sponsors. ie City`s shirt sleeve sponsor which is 5 times bigger than Arsenals, both being not related to their owners, would come under the fair value scrutiny, this fair value body also named in City`s case. while Newcastle may have a problem with this, their problem is with the 2021 change, regarding related sponsors, that they will have to comply with anyway, should they enter UEFA competitions.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You may know more, but i am under the impression City`s case is about the vote in February, that changed non related sponsors. ie City`s shirt sleeve sponsor which is 5 times bigger than Arsenals, both being not related to their owners, would come under the fair value scrutiny, this fair value body also named in City`s case. while Newcastle may have a problem with this, their problem is with the 2021 change, regarding related sponsors, that they will have to comply with anyway, should they enter UEFA competitions.

:)

I don't know any more than you do, and that is only what Lawton (was it?) explained poorly in his article. Nobody knows any more, or at least is explaining any more. Funny that.

But I would find it strange to start an action about the legality of APTs without including the original 2021 rules, which City said at the time were probably, in their view, illegal. A club can't take this action very often. Getting it all cleared up in one action would be my thinking.

You are right, though. The February changes were obviously the straw that broke the camel's back. Appropriately enough.

 

[Keeper!]

This fucking Wyness "gobshite for hire" is doing my head in. Every day he is in my newsfeed with some more nonsense. A couple of days ago he was saying that if City lose the 115 case they will set up a new SL with Saudi Arabia; the next day he was saying the government will step in to stop City joining a SL; today he is saying the APT case will be "squashed" but City's win will be to have tied up resources at the PL. Every fucking day. Just shut up, man.

The one thing I won't miss when all this is over is the financial and legal experts who keep crawling out of the woodwork into the press.

Wyness is an utterly irrelevant ex CEO, who will do and say anything for money.

Please don't give this fool any time or credibility and definitely do not post any link to his comments, that's how he makes a living.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

:)

I don't know any more than you do, and that is only what Lawton (was it?) explained poorly in his article. Nobody knows any more, or at least is explaining any more. Funny that.

But I would find it strange to start an action about the legality of APTs without including the original 2021 rules, which City said at the time were probably, in their view, illegal. A club can't take this action very often. Getting it all cleared up in one action would be my thinking.

You are right, though. The February changes were obviously the straw that broke the camel's back. Appropriately enough.

We are already limited it what our owners can put in ,or sponsor, due to UEFA, having a different body doing the limiting does not mean much, especially as it would also affect the cartel.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

This thread is my only source of information regarding this.

I think I’m in very capable hands

 

[Norman kneejerk]

Wyness is an utterly irrelevant ex CEO, who will do and say anything for money.

Please don't give this fool any time or credibility and definitely do not post any link to his comments, that's how he makes a living.

Very much this.
Boosts his earnings by tapping into the anti city market.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Very much this.
Boosts his earnings by tapping into the anti city market.

It’s becoming something of a cottage industry now, with a selection of no-nouts leading the gullible sheep by the nose and presumably making money out of it.
I hope they are suitably grateful for the dosh and the fame!

 

[halfcenturyup]

We are already limited it what our owners can put in ,or sponsor, due to UEFA, having a different body doing the limiting does not mean much, especially as it would also affect the cartel.

There is a fundamental difference between the UEFA rules, which use the well-established accounting definitions to decide if they should look at FMV or not. Etihad. as an example, isn't a related party for UEFA, but it is "associated" for the PL.

The PL rules go way beyond normal accounting rules, and have been written specifically to counter sponsorship with companies in which any family member of Mansour, or other board members, for example have a degree of influence. That is the problem with the 2021 rules iirc. The PL can interfere in almost any large sponsorship deal that has any connection to the AD government, or Mubadala or any of its investments, or with any company in which any family member of Khaldoon, for example, has influence. These are big, influential families with fingers in lots of pies. In the same way the Newcastle owners and board are. And finally, they don't just want to adjust the revenue down to FMV, they want the two "associated parties" to adjust their contracts and tell them how much is acceptable. It really is a remarkably bad set of rules.

The 2021 rules weren't welcomed by City, but they weren't too onerous. The new February rules are onerous, discriminatory and unnecessary for sporting regulation. I am not surprised the club have said enough is enough.

But to my original point, I would be surprised if, having cast doubt on their legality at the time and having taken such strong action against the PL now, the club hasn't included the 2021 implementation into account to require the PL to write the whole thing again and either scrap it or get it right this time.

All imho, of course. Could be completely wrong :)