City Launch Legal Challenge Against PL Charges & Barrister

[Scatman]

Spartacus: but equity and loans are not something that are included in the calculations that decide what a club can spend are they? Arsenal have their interest free loans but it didn't give them any more to spend on players. Their big revenue streams did that. If we had interest free loans we would have had no more to spend on players, with the problem being that we didn't have big enough revenue streams to achieve our objectives either. So the Sheikh's cousin helped us out.

[Im_Spartacus]

We’re not accused of inflating sponsorships. We’re accused of massive fraud in that the sponsors did not pay all of the sums set out which were instead paid by City’s owners. So there is an alleged massive inter continental conspiracy over 10 years to present fraudulent accounts invlolving large numbers of very senior people. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

2 sides of the same coin fella - it was alleged right from 2009 that the value of the Etihad sponsorship deal was unprecedented, and the suggestion was always that Etihad also had no real means to pay for that sponsorship given that they were a pretty small airline.

But here's an interesting one for everyone to ponder that's relevant to both the case we just had about how different sponsorships at different times are worth different things to different companies, and the question of disguised equity..........

Etihad's deal with City started in 2010

In 2011 they hit their first ever net profit, and revenues quadrupled in the 5 years period immediately after their sponsorship in City - and this is a great example to show that in the big scheme of things, $100m a year for Etihad, as a tactical sponsorship/marketing tool, it's hard to say that they didn't get value for money when you see the growth of the business during that time - while City's sponsorship deal was high, you can see how it was worth it to Etihad given how they subsequently grew. So again, why the fuck would Etihad need to get involved in disguising equity to cover $100m a year expenditure against a backdrop of $7bn of sales growth

2009 - $2.3bn - before sponsorship
2010 - $3bn
2011 - 4.1bn
2012 - 4.8bn
2013 - 6.1bn
2014 - 7.6bn
2015 - 9bn

Its patently fucking ridiculous $100m is chicken feed in the big scheme of things supporting that sort of revenue growth, then you have the likes of Emirates spending $300m a year across their portfolio, and nobody questions that 'state aid'

[Im_Spartacus]

Spartacus: but equity and loans are not something that are included in the calculations that decide what a club can spend are they? Arsenal have their interest free loans but it didn't give them any more to spend on players. Their big revenue streams did that. If we had interest free loans we would have had no more to spend on players, with the problem being that we didn't have big enough revenue streams to achieve our objectives either. So the Sheikh's cousin helped us out.

There's two sides to the issue......one is the fact that Arsenal weren't paying interest of lets say 8%, meant they had some 20m more to spend on players each year than if it were a commercial arrangement.

And in terms of the loan, it depends how you go about it.........City's owners could have lent the club $2bn, which invested at 5% income, would have generated $100m legitimate revenue. $5bn would have generated $250m legitimate revenue etc. I know it's a very oversimplified argument and depends on someone having a few $bn down the back of the sofa, but they could have done it if they wanted - and the question is, why didn't they if it would have saved all this shit.

Arsenal's loan was to build their stadium, which is a revenue generating asset just the same

So it would seem AD perhaps figured it would be cheaper to risk get caught breaching the rules, gambling a worst case scenario of not get relegated/banned from CL, pay a big fuck off fine and move on - and thats exactly what we did first time round with UEFA even though we made it clear we disagreed, and I wonder whether the club sense that PL/UEFA are just coming back again and again as a shakedown.

[blues2win]

The PL have to prove beyond the balance of probabilities that City and associated Parties committed massive fraud not that this or that contract did not represent value for money. City and Etihad strongly deny that the funds for the sponsorship came from City. Not sure whether you agree with the PL about this or not.

[Im_Spartacus]

The PL have to prove beyond the balance of probabilities that City and associated Parties committed massive fraud not that this or that contract did not represent value for money. City and Etihad strongly deny that the funds for the sponsorship came from City. Not sure whether you agree with the PL about this or not.

My position is that the people who matter, say that there is no evidence to substantiate these allegations.

[blues2win]

We’re agreed. Etihad and other sponsors did have the funds and did pay what they contracted to. By the way they were proved to have invested very well in a great brand.

[Bluemoon4610]

We’re not accused of inflating sponsorships. We’re accused of massive fraud in that the sponsors did not pay all of the sums set out which were instead paid by City’s owners. So there is an alleged massive inter continental conspiracy over 10 years to present fraudulent accounts invlolving large numbers of very senior people. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

2 sides of the same coin fella - it was alleged right from 2009 that the value of the Etihad sponsorship deal was unprecedented, and the suggestion was always that Etihad also had no real means to pay for that sponsorship given that they were a pretty small airline.

But here's an interesting one for everyone to ponder that's relevant to both the case we just had about how different sponsorships at different times are worth different things to different companies, and the question of disguised equity..........

Etihad's deal with City started in 2010

In 2011 they hit their first ever net profit, and revenues quadrupled in the 5 years period immediately after their sponsorship in City - and this is a great example to show that in the big scheme of things, $100m a year for Etihad, as a tactical sponsorship/marketing tool, it's hard to say that they didn't get value for money when you see the growth of the business during that time - while City's sponsorship deal was high, you can see how it was worth it to Etihad given how they subsequently grew. So again, why the fuck would Etihad need to get involved in disguising equity to cover $100m a year expenditure against a backdrop of $7bn of sales growth

2009 - $2.3bn - before sponsorship
2010 - $3bn
2011 - 4.1bn
2012 - 4.8bn
2013 - 6.1bn
2014 - 7.6bn
2015 - 9bn

Its patently fucking ridiculous $100m is chicken feed in the big scheme of things supporting that sort of revenue growth, then you have the likes of Emirates spending $300m a year across their portfolio, and nobody questions that 'state aid' as a good chunk goes to a red-shirt cartel member.

Looks like the last half of the last line of your excellent post was missing, so I've finished it for you...

Your post shows exactly why it is impossible to value an APT , or any other sponsorship deal, from the outset. Who could have guessed Etihad's revenues would grow so staggeringly? How much of that extra revenue was due to the link to us? 1%? 10%? All of it? The only way to value any sponsorship deal is after it has been completed,, when any "value" can be observed. And by then it's too late to say oh, it was worth £xxx. Still virtually impossible to say how much of any growth was down to the association, though.
A totally unworkable concept from the off, except as another tool for the cartel to use to help keep their noses in the trough.

[carl_feedthegoat]

We’re not accused of inflating sponsorships. We’re accused of massive fraud in that the sponsors did not pay all of the sums set out which were instead paid by City’s owners. So there is an alleged massive inter continental conspiracy over 10 years to present fraudulent accounts invlolving large numbers of very senior people. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

2 sides of the same coin fella - it was alleged right from 2009 that the value of the Etihad sponsorship deal was unprecedented, and the suggestion was always that Etihad also had no real means to pay for that sponsorship given that they were a pretty small airline.

But here's an interesting one for everyone to ponder that's relevant to both the case we just had about how different sponsorships at different times are worth different things to different companies, and the question of disguised equity..........

Etihad's deal with City started in 2010

In 2011 they hit their first ever net profit, and revenues quadrupled in the 5 years period immediately after their sponsorship in City - and this is a great example to show that in the big scheme of things, $100m a year for Etihad, as a tactical sponsorship/marketing tool, it's hard to say that they didn't get value for money when you see the growth of the business during that time - while City's sponsorship deal was high, you can see how it was worth it to Etihad given how they subsequently grew. So again, why the fuck would Etihad need to get involved in disguising equity to cover $100m a year expenditure against a backdrop of $7bn of sales growth

2009 - $2.3bn - before sponsorship
2010 - $3bn
2011 - 4.1bn
2012 - 4.8bn
2013 - 6.1bn
2014 - 7.6bn
2015 - 9bn

Its patently fucking ridiculous $100m is chicken feed in the big scheme of things supporting that sort of revenue growth, then you have the likes of Emirates spending $300m a year across their portfolio, and nobody questions that 'state aid'

Premier league are going to see their arse on this issue.

https://news.sky.com/story/etihad-airwa ... p-13231021

[Im_Spartacus]

We’re not accused of inflating sponsorships. We’re accused of massive fraud in that the sponsors did not pay all of the sums set out which were instead paid by City’s owners. So there is an alleged massive inter continental conspiracy over 10 years to present fraudulent accounts invlolving large numbers of very senior people. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

2 sides of the same coin fella - it was alleged right from 2009 that the value of the Etihad sponsorship deal was unprecedented, and the suggestion was always that Etihad also had no real means to pay for that sponsorship given that they were a pretty small airline.

But here's an interesting one for everyone to ponder that's relevant to both the case we just had about how different sponsorships at different times are worth different things to different companies, and the question of disguised equity..........

Etihad's deal with City started in 2010

In 2011 they hit their first ever net profit, and revenues quadrupled in the 5 years period immediately after their sponsorship in City - and this is a great example to show that in the big scheme of things, $100m a year for Etihad, as a tactical sponsorship/marketing tool, it's hard to say that they didn't get value for money when you see the growth of the business during that time - while City's sponsorship deal was high, you can see how it was worth it to Etihad given how they subsequently grew. So again, why the fuck would Etihad need to get involved in disguising equity to cover $100m a year expenditure against a backdrop of $7bn of sales growth

2009 - $2.3bn - before sponsorship
2010 - $3bn
2011 - 4.1bn
2012 - 4.8bn
2013 - 6.1bn
2014 - 7.6bn
2015 - 9bn

Its patently fucking ridiculous $100m is chicken feed in the big scheme of things supporting that sort of revenue growth, then you have the likes of Emirates spending $300m a year across their portfolio, and nobody questions that 'state aid'

Premier league are going to see their arse on this issue.

https://news.sky.com/story/etihad-airwa ... p-13231021

You're right - Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it.

[carl_feedthegoat]

We’re not accused of inflating sponsorships. We’re accused of massive fraud in that the sponsors did not pay all of the sums set out which were instead paid by City’s owners. So there is an alleged massive inter continental conspiracy over 10 years to present fraudulent accounts invlolving large numbers of very senior people. If you believe that you’ll believe anything.

2 sides of the same coin fella - it was alleged right from 2009 that the value of the Etihad sponsorship deal was unprecedented, and the suggestion was always that Etihad also had no real means to pay for that sponsorship given that they were a pretty small airline.

But here's an interesting one for everyone to ponder that's relevant to both the case we just had about how different sponsorships at different times are worth different things to different companies, and the question of disguised equity..........

Etihad's deal with City started in 2010

In 2011 they hit their first ever net profit, and revenues quadrupled in the 5 years period immediately after their sponsorship in City - and this is a great example to show that in the big scheme of things, $100m a year for Etihad, as a tactical sponsorship/marketing tool, it's hard to say that they didn't get value for money when you see the growth of the business during that time - while City's sponsorship deal was high, you can see how it was worth it to Etihad given how they subsequently grew. So again, why the fuck would Etihad need to get involved in disguising equity to cover $100m a year expenditure against a backdrop of $7bn of sales growth

2009 - $2.3bn - before sponsorship
2010 - $3bn
2011 - 4.1bn
2012 - 4.8bn
2013 - 6.1bn
2014 - 7.6bn
2015 - 9bn

Its patently fucking ridiculous $100m is chicken feed in the big scheme of things supporting that sort of revenue growth, then you have the likes of Emirates spending $300m a year across their portfolio, and nobody questions that 'state aid'

Premier league are going to see their arse on this issue.

https://news.sky.com/story/etihad-airwa ... p-13231021

You're right - Abu Dhabi recently opened a spanking new airport and is now ready to grow in the coming years to compete with Qatar as a major hub - so then we can assume the deal under question now in this recent case was specifically structured to support that unique scenario which is primed and ready for massive growth over the next few years.

The current sponsorship is $68m a year against $6bn revenue - so roughly 1% of Etihad's global revenue. If they wanted to double that spend (for example), with a view to supporting a doubling of growth in revenue to $12bn over the next few years AND they were privy to what City were going to do with that money, eg specific marquee signings that may be directly tied to that deal that would also justify its value, then that is information no regulator can second guess the value of.

Now, when you look at whether a deal makes sense in the context of the company/time/place, contrast our Etihad sponsorship to Teamviewer, a relatively unknown brand who spent 10% of their total 580m global revenue on a single sponsorship.

Now if you came down from another planet and put those 2 deals side by side and asked which one looked suspicious on the basic economics of the deal, I don't think we need to be Einstein to see that Etihad isn't the problem here.

So in the case City have raised, their issue is that they didn't get the opportunity to see the deals the Etihad proposal was benchmarked against, and with that being hidden they have every right to suspect that apples weren't being compared with apples - it's a shocking process, and how the PL thought they could get away with it without a club like city challenging it is beyond me.

The funny thing is, the legal actions themselves are making City a massive advertising platform - giving Etihad more exposure than they could dream of - as every article mentions them and every article shows a picture of a city player with the Etihad brand splashed across it.

Exactly this - we are a sponsors dream .

The more I read about the complete incompetence of Masters / Premier league rules and regulations the more at ease I am waiting for the final outcome.

There is no way on earth that City will not seek substantial damages from the league if and when we win our case - dragging a person or business through the mud, being labelled a fraud, amongst other names being directed at us , will cost them fucking dear when the time comes.

The cherry on the cake is that the clubs that have gone after us will have to foot the bill and hopefully a letter goes to that toad in Spain that anymore of his slander will get him hung drawn and quartered.

[PaulieIrish]

Manchester City rivals line up damages claims over Premier League charges

©Telegraph.co.uk
Today at 17:35
The Premier League’s civil war will enter a new phase over the next month when Manchester City are expected to receive legal notices from rival clubs that reserve their rights to seek damages.
Claims for breach of contract generally have a six-year limitation and, with allegations of Manchester City rule-breaking emerging in Der Spiegel in November 2018, there is a feeling inside the league that clubs must act to reserve their rights while football’s so-called ‘trial of the century’ continues.

City have always denied breaking any rules but, such has been the time it has taken for the Premier League to investigate and bring charges, it is understood that clubs are taking legal advice on the issue before deciding how to proceed.

Any eventual arbitration between Premier League clubs is private but City will soon have a much better idea of who intends to seek damages if an ongoing independent commission finds serious wrongdoing in its investigation of more than 100 alleged rule breaches.

“It is not something clubs would want to do before knowing the outcome of the commission but they may very well feel that they have no choice,” said one lawyer, who has advised Premier League clubs. “Clubs who have been competing with City for major trophies and European qualification would potentially have most at stake but it all ultimately depends on what the commission finds and the result of any appeal, so this could go on for many months yet.”

A reservation of rights letter is typically served where a party has become aware of facts which may amount to breach of contract, but needs time to investigate and consider its options, and wishes in the meantime to reserve its rights.


The 1980 Limitation Act sets out a six-year period from being aware of any potential breach with reasonable diligence. It is a point in time that could be open to interpretation given City’s consistent denials and how allegations first surfaced via Der Spiegel’s reports of the Football Leaks documents on November 5, 2018.

City say they have “irrefutable evidence” to support their innocence over alleged breaches and that they “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all.”

The hearing − which concerns Premier League rules relating to financial information, acting in good faith and providing information - began last month in St Paul’s and is expected to last around 10 weeks. It follows a separate arbitration tribunal that heard City’s challenge over the associated party transaction (APT) rules in June, and for which findings were published by the two sides this week.

With both the league and City continuing to claim victory, executives from both sides are understood to have written to the tribunal panel to gain full clarity on the status of the APT regulations. The three-man panel, all retired senior judges, are expected to issue further written clarification in days, if not weeks. However, it is unlikely there will be any definitive response prior to next Thursday’s emergency meeting to discuss the consequences for clubs.

The war between City and the league escalated after the club sent an explosive email to the other 19 clubs claiming the top tier summary of findings contained “inaccuracies” and was “misleading”. Rivals have been taken aback by the letter, however, accusing City of attempting to seize control of the competition.


ADVERTISEMENT

×
The APT rules seek to ensure that commercial deals between clubs and entities linked to their ownership are done at fair market value (FMV), to avoid such deals being artificially inflated to boost revenue.

City argue the APT rules are all void because the judgement found certain aspects of them to be in breach of competition law. The Premier League’s position is that the judgement was on the whole an endorsement of the APT rules and the principles behind it, and therefore only those aspects found in breach need revising.

[Mase]

Any club that tries to do that to us, the moment we try dealing with them for any reason at all I’ll call it a day. Nuke fuckin everyone.

[carolina-blue]

Any club that tries to do that to us, the moment we try dealing with them for any reason at all I’ll call it a day. Nuke fuckin everyone.

How the Fuck can that Beradda? Go to the Scum
Knowing all the shit against us that they are behind

[johnny crossan]

Just read City's owners have been in charge longer than any other PL club owner (rags apart) and Pep is the longest serving manager. Amazing isn't it - we created the wealth that lot are there to plunder.

[salford city]

Just read City's owners have been in charge longer than any other PL club owner (rags apart) and Pep is the longest serving manager. Amazing isn't it - we created the wealth that lot are there to plunder.

Cannot be so - our owner got bored years ago and fucked off?
Seriously, this is what most fans miss, the Sheikh and his team came in with a plan and I daresay, that is evolving year on year. Scruffy Jim wants a piece of the action but they are light years behind us. The best bit in that, is in trying to replicate our model, scruffy jim and his boys will become cheerleaders for us (& necessarily side with us?) as they want a set-up like ours

[blues2win]

https://x.com/mikekeegan_dm/status/1844 ... 9Awxy5lqVQ


Masters now admits it will take time to deal with the fall out from City’s victory in the associated parties case. No quick fix as he originally suggested. Shambles.

[patrickblue]

https://x.com/mikekeegan_dm/status/1844815710834364879?s=61&t=6ifllXVJePmO9Awxy5lqVQ


Masters now admits it will take time to deal with the fall out from City’s victory in the associated parties case. No quick fix as he originally suggested. Shambles.

And so the backsliding starts.

Sounds like the clarification the PL and City requested from the tribunal panel has come through.

[Harry Dowd scored]

As per
@Lawton_Times
, the Premier League and Richard Masters have now GONE BACK on the statement they released on Monday stating that APT rule changes “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs” and have now sent a letter to its clubs stating that they would be taking “the necessary time to develop our proposals and the associated draft rule amendments” for Associated Party Transactions.

[Bluemoon4610]

As per
@Lawton_Times
, the Premier League and Richard Masters have now GONE BACK on the statement they released on Monday stating that APT rule changes “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs” and have now sent a letter to its clubs stating that they would be taking “the necessary time to develop our proposals and the associated draft rule amendments” for Associated Party Transactions.

Just scrolled right through the BBC sport football pages - funnily enough this story doesn't get a mention...

[john@staustell]

As per
@Lawton_Times
, the Premier League and Richard Masters have now GONE BACK on the statement they released on Monday stating that APT rule changes “can quickly and effectively be remedied by the league and clubs” and have now sent a letter to its clubs stating that they would be taking “the necessary time to develop our proposals and the associated draft rule amendments” for Associated Party Transactions.

More proof of incompetence from their own admission