City launch legal action against the Premier League

[unicorn]

Many years ago I had a mate who would sometimes get himself into bother and end up in prison. He would say, prior to sentencing, that he could do with a stint inside to bulk up. He meant it too, the mad ****.

Our stint in the National League could be like that. Keep us Blues in typical City mode.

We'd definitely get real ale at some of those National League grounds. Makes you think...

 

[laserblue]

As well as Leicester City's stadium name and shirts being sponsored by their owners King Power we now have this which is apparently perfectly acceptable.

Leicester City handed £15m FFP boost as Seagrave deal confirmed

The latest Leicester City news as the latest accounts show a deal between City and King Power for the naming rights of Seagrave training ground as well as the King Power Stadium.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

For someone who tried to avoid the media as much as possible, what have those lovable angels been up to now?

Standard Chartered hit with $100 billion terror group money laundering accusations

FTSE 100 bank denies the claims, made in US court papers in a case hoping to overturn a previous ruling backed by the Supreme Court

www.standard.co.uk

 

[richards30]

Away grounds are going to be toxic next season and beyond aren’t they? This has gone down like a complete shitbrick and everyone has lost their heads. If we don’t win we are fucked aren’t we?

 

[GLBlue1995]

Any chance this is part of the exit strategy the premier league and city were talking about according to a post on here a couple of months back?

You suggesting that City agreed to abide by the new related party rules in exchange for the 115 going away forever?

Not sure that buys us much in the court of public opinion, but it could bring finality, I guess.

 

[Bez]

Whilst the PL have been litigating against us and other member clubs, there has been an increase in gonorrhoea cases in England. I wonder if the conspiracy theorists out there on Twitter will blame our owners for this as well? It's only a matter of time...Magic Twat is on the case.

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

That's true, I forgot about that. Sir Jim wanting to get buddy buddy with us after hiring one of our executives as his CEO is intriguing. Can't stand the rags but I'd imagine we'd be more likely to win the case with their backing.

No ta.
We don't want them on our side or need them.
Weve helped them before and look how they thanked us by putting that banner up.
So fuck them.
Keep them as the enemy for ever

 

[flb]

Certainly if Ineos want to build on their multi-club model it is possible. Not sure how it would square with the Glazers though. That said the new rules will constrain United if they are serious about getting the club back to the top. The game has changed I think.

They are openly copying the City model , they know the fucking score , and they have an ex City employee at the helm who knows damn well that it takes a lot more than past glory’s to keep up with MCFC.

 

[lasereyes]

So this fair market value bollox makes no sense.

Say I want to sell my house can I only sell it at the market value or can I put it up for sale for as much as I want & even sell it to my family if they are willing to pay for what I believe it’s worth.

Yes I can just like city can charge what they want for sponsorships.

Rinse them city & let’s name those tossers trying to stop other clubs from growing

It's not an apt analogy as you are not an independently audited entity. As I understand the APT is not determining what City charge, but how they value (and recognize revenue from) the sponsorship deal which in turn impacts their audited financial statements. As much as I can follow, City are questioning the need for an independent valuation, presumably because there is no objective way to measure it + the rules being applied differently for different teams.

 

[yarny101]

A breakdown to the article provided by Google's Gemini:

Manchester City vs. Premier League: A Legal Battle Over Money and Fair Play​

Manchester City is locked in a legal battle with the Premier League over rules that restrict sponsorship deals with companies linked to a club's owners. City claims these rules are unfair and stifle their financial growth, while the Premier League argues they are necessary to maintain competitive balance.

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

• The Dispute: Manchester City is challenging the Premier League's Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which require independent assessment of sponsorship deals with companies linked to club owners.
• City's Arguments:
  • The APT rules are discriminatory against clubs with Gulf ownership.
  • The rules prevent City from maximizing their commercial revenue.
  • The two-thirds majority voting system in the Premier League is unfair.
  • The APT rules lack evidence of actual harm to competition.
• Premier League's Arguments:
  • The APT rules are necessary to prevent inflated sponsorship deals that distort competition.
  • City is financially doping by spending more than they earn.
  • The independent assessment protects against conflicts of interest.

The Outcome's Impact:

• The outcome of this case could significantly impact the financial landscape of the Premier League.
• If City wins, it could allow clubs to spend more freely without restrictions on sponsorship deals.
• If the Premier League wins, the current financial regulations might be strengthened.

Additional Points:

• This legal battle is estimated to cost millions in fees for both sides.
• The hearing is set for June 10-21, 2024.
• Manchester City faces separate charges of financial rule breaches in November 2024.

This is a complex legal battle with significant implications for the future of financial regulations in English football. The outcome will be closely watched by fans, clubs, and financial experts around the world.