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

salfordbluetrue said:
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
Click to expand...

Keith Wyness is the stupidest and most pointless rent-a-gob who exists. I would listen to Mark Goldbridge over him.
 
KS55 said:
I’m guessing here but maybe the following is true:
1. The PL has taken the view that City are state owned.
Alternatively, that Mansour is a member of the UAE Government
Or Mansour is so influential that AbuDhabi companies effectively take orders from him.
How else do they reckon that the AbuDhabi based sponsorships are ‘Associated’? Not just Geography surely? (Pace Kieron Maguire)
2. The so- called experts who value associated sponsorships have a strange view of why companies choose to sponsor particular clubs. History looms large in their narrative but current success does not. For our sponsors the predominance of City on US tv is easily the most important factor.
Have the PL produced a weighting for each of these factors? If not, the valuations are very challengeable as being not based on genuine business factors but a whim.
3. Given that not one of our sponsorships has been passed by the PL, how do they square that with UEFA’s attitude that they are all ok?
…. ….. …. ….. ….. …. …..
Judging by the press references to the background briefing paper from City, I am a bit concerned that City are not basing their case purely on business grounds but are arguing more nebulous factors militating against clubs owned up in the Middle East.
Despite the proceedings being confidential, I can see no reason why City should not state their case in public, at least in general terms.
Click to expand...

All good points, but the PL don't have to conclude the club is state-owned to apply the APT rules.

1000000446.png
1000000448.png

Let's not forget who Mansour's brother is.....

It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.

This is their definition of material influence, btw:

1000000450.png
 
halfcenturyup said:
All good points, but the PL don't have to conclude the club is state-owned to apply the APT rules.

View attachment 122639
View attachment 122640

Let's not forget who Mansour's brother is.....

It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.

This is their definition of material influence, btw:

View attachment 122642
Click to expand...

But the key component here are if City are owned/influenced by the state which would then open all the companies to APT rules. City will presumably argue that we are not.
 
halfcenturyup said:
He is back today with the view that PIF won't be letting Newcastle support City in the APT case because they will care more about sporting integrity and financial regulation. That's an original view. And bollocks. He is also blathering on still about how City can sign any contract for any amount they want if they win the case. The guy is a buffoon. But he is fucking everywhere. Just a reminder he was CEO of Everton when Mansour was sniffing around his club and they treated him so disrespectfully he eventually came to God's own. Yes sure. Listen to that arsehole.

On your second paragraph, I doubt very much City are leaking anything, it's not the owner's style. And I really can't imagine the legal teams are leaking, can you? Seriously? That leaves the PL who aren't officially leaking, I think, but who, deliberately or not, get messages out to club executives who then leak to the press if it is the right message. I would imagine the arbitrators have made it very clear to the PL that any more leaks about the process will be looked on very unfavourably. Which is why we aren't hearing any.

Anyway, Wyness = arsehole ....
Click to expand...

I am not trying to suggest anyone in particular is leaking I simply don’t know all I am trying to suggest is it’s best to keep an open mind.
Of course not all but I had dealings many years ago with a Barrister and he had the loosest tongue you could imagine he was playing Billy Big ones and
Bear in mind all the info in this matter has been shared with clubs
 
Damocles said:
But the key component here are if City are owned/influenced by the state which would then open all the companies to APT rules. City will presumably argue that we are not.
Click to expand...

Material influence is such a nebulous concept in these rules, though. I could easily make a case that the club is materially influenced by Mansour's brother, the President. For example, where did Khaldoon and Pearce come from? So any investment under his remit, or any of his other children, their wives etc, or under any fund of any of them, would be "associated". Normally under related party rules that isn't important. But with these rules, there is a whole hornet's nest waiting to be disturbed.

Before February the rules could be tolerated as not too onerous. Now, though, imho, the whole thing has gone way too far with burden of proof on the club, required statements from sponsors, comparable bids, PL imposing their own valuations, and charges and penalties if the PL doesn't agree with the club.

It's mind-boggling, really.
 
halfcenturyup said:
All good points, but the PL don't have to conclude the club is state-owned to apply the APT rules.

View attachment 122639
View attachment 122640

Let's not forget who Mansour's brother is.....

It's pretty clear that these rules were targeted at City and Newcastle. They even mention governments, public or state-funded bodies. I am pretty sure the club can show that. Whether it is illegal or not is a different matter, of course.

This is their definition of material influence, btw:

View attachment 122642
Click to expand...
Think i am going to get a headache trying to understand that, thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.