manimanc
Well-Known Member
I was being sarccy saying he's said we'll win/lose/draw or the Premier League will win/lose/draw.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,872
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 ?
I doubt very much that is what the club are wanting. Where did you get that from?
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that view of the process, even my lack of legal knowledge now appreciates the way it works.I'm not so sure, actually. Everyone here seems to be fixed on the idea that either the PL will win this case or City will. I don't concur. The Panel could quite easily determine that APT rules as a matter of generality are legally acceptable, but that the way in which they're currrently implemented isn't. Quite possibly neither party would be entirely satisfied with that.
It could mean that, while some of the aspects of the APT rules that City find most objectionable might be struck out, we may have to continue to put up with others that stick in our craw. Meanwhile, the PL could find some of the key regulatory planks it felt were desirable for it to deal with this issue removed, while being vindicated in terms of the overall principle and some other aspects of the regulatory specifics.
So it might not be quite as black and w6hite as many people are making out in terms of one party losing and the other winning. Who would be more satisfied with a 'halfway house' decision as described above depends on where the line is drawn, but, as I've said, it's entirely feasible that neither party would be all that happy.
Just one question. Will the Panel be trying to get a compromise of the type you describe or will they simply impose one based on their legal findings?
Thanks again Peter.
Etihad is market value for what they get - shirt; ground naming; etc. in fact I think it’s undervaluedSo 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 ?
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
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 ?
No, not that at all. It’s far more nuanced with a lot of intricacies.
Weird stance to take by the way. Thought I was on RAWK.
Last edited:
Thanks for that view of the process, even my lack of legal knowledge now appreciates the way it works.
Just one question. Will the Panel be trying to get a compromise of the type you describe or will they simply impose one based on their legal findings?
Thanks again Peter.
It's not a mediation process and the Panel is under no obligation to reach a compromise. They'll carry out a thorough legal analysis and if they agree entirely with one side or the other, the final judgment will reflect that.
That’s an oversimplification. City say that the wording of the rules discriminates against gulf countries. Furthermore, I think they object to the so called independent valuation which is done by a company that works for other PL clubs, that does not specify the weight it gives to different factors and is a single valuation rather than comparative ones with other experts.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 ?
However, the exact nature of our challenge has never been openly stated, so we are all guessing a bit.
Last edited:
Centurions
Well-Known Member
It's not an oversimplification at all, it's pure nonsense.That’s an oversimplification. City say that the wording of the rules discriminates against gulf countries. Furthermore, I think they object to the so called independent valuation which is done by a company that works for other PL clubs, that does not specify the weight it gives to different factors and is a single valuation father than comparative ones with other experts.
However, the exact nature of our challenge has never been openly stated, so we are all guessing a bit.
It is possible that there's a joke in there somewhere that has managed to go over everybody's heads though.
I was being very kind and polite which is, of course, the norm for BM.It's not an oversimplification at all, it's pure nonsense.
It is possible that there's a joke in there somewhere that has managed to go over everybody's heads though.
NZBlue
Well-Known Member
Fuck off- you're a scum wankerI was being very kind and polite which is, of course, the norm for BM.
That's the norm for BM.
But of course i don't mean it ::-)