City launch legal action against the Premier League

[salfordbluetrue]

Related party already exists

Yes it does, in the UEFA case that was part of the problem, they could not determine who owned what. but in the amended February rule, the related part is irrelevant. for example City have a shirt sleeve sponsor that is 5X large than Arsenal`s, neither is a related party, the PL regulator is a company used by liverpool, which could be classed as a liverpool employee , Under the February change the regulator decides what is the value of all sponsors, what is more they can chose which clubs to investigate, and which they do not want to, so even if one club was at fault, they could chose to ignore even with evidence.

 

[Coatigan]

Good summary. How do they decide which deals it applies to?

That's the multi million pound question, isn't it. As I read it, a panel for the PL would decide if parties are 'associated'. Who and how and what the criteria is, I honestly don't know. Then a third party company would look at the lower bids, and decide what the fair value is. I have seen claims (don't know how true) that this 3d party company named by the PL is already appointed in a commercial capacity by United and Arsenal, to value their own in-house deals. So ironically, they themselves are technically an associated party.

 

[Coatigan]

My biggest issue with this whole change is how it is presented, and the headlines derived from it.

These are portrayed as rules to 'stop owners inflating sponsorship, through using associated parties to mask money ultimately coming from the owners'. Implying, that certain clubs are already doing this. Although unrelated to the charges, odd context to set, with a big hearing coming up.

 

[KS55]

Good summary. How do they decide which deals it applies to?

 

[KS55]

Good summary. How do they decide which deals it applies to?

Aha, well spotted. They don’t actually say, which is very convenient. I think the guidance says something like “If the PL deem it necessary.” Who does the deeming and what are the criteria? Hmmm….

 

[Sir peace frog]

have i got this right ? basically any company from the middle east is "associated" to our owners(so its being claimed), if an american owned club gets sponsorship off an american company ,no problem

 

[CC1]

If the shirt is scarlet all deals are ok…..

Thought that was the criteria!

 

[CC1]

That's the multi million pound question, isn't it. As I read it, a panel for the PL would decide if parties are 'associated'. Who and how and what the criteria is, I honestly don't know. Then a third party company would look at the lower bids, and decide what the fair value is. I have seen claims (don't know how true) that this 3d party company named by the PL is already appointed in a commercial capacity by United and Arsenal, to value their own in-house deals. So ironically, they themselves are technically an associated party.

Yep. I’ve heard that. So basically it’s the usual biased rag set up.
Fully support the club in challenging this

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yep. I’ve heard that. So basically it’s the usual biased rag set up.
Fully support the club in challenging this

The club should use the Chelsea "loophole" approach and sign 150 sponsorship deals with AD companies for GBP 999,999 each and tell the PL to just fuck off. Probably too serious as businessmen to do that, though. Shame.

 

[KS55]

Yes it does, in the UEFA case that was part of the problem, they could not determine who owned what. but in the amended February rule, the related part is irrelevant. for example City have a shirt sleeve sponsor that is 5X large than Arsenal`s, neither is a related party, the PL regulator is a company used by liverpool, which could be classed as a liverpool employee , Under the February change the regulator decides what is the value of all sponsors, what is more they can chose which clubs to investigate, and which they do not want to, so even if one club was at fault, they could chose to ignore even with evidence.

Just to add a little semi-irrelevant spice. The investigation of City was, I believe, carried out by Bird &Bird Solrs. who acted as Liverpool’s ffp advisor.
The evidence that this whole shenanigans is not kosher is quite extensive. I hope our lawyers pile on with this and all the other factors showing the PL and the Redshirts to have acted in bad faith. That bad faith gives us the ability to appeal to the high court.