We’ve had the press release from Man City claiming they’ve won, we’ve had the press release from the Premier League saying they’ve won. Here are the official ruling documents: the reality is somewhere in the middle. Tl;dr:
1) The Premier League’s ruling over two of City’s sponsorship deals must be re-considered due to procedural inadequacies.
2) Sponsorships being held to Fair Market Value (FMV) will be retained.
3) The Premier League must make their FMV benchmarking data readily available to clubs.
4) Shareholder loans must be considered in line with APT (and therefore PSR) rules (likely to affect clubs like Chelsea, Newcastle, Everton and Arsenal).
by one_and_only_chand
19 comments
City complaining about someone else delaying things is unironically hilarious
I guess its win-win for both sides
An awful lot of “that challenge has failed” for them to seriously be claiming this as a victory.
So the PL delayed cooperation with us and they withheld information from us?
Surely that should mean all our challenges get upheld by default, because you only hide stuff if you’re guilty, right?
City’s statement seems more disingenuous with every passing minute.
They’ve just reported in their statement that APT rules have been found to be unlawful…period. No mention of on the specifics of what was unlawful (minor technicalities) and no mention of what being “set aside” means. (It means it has to be reassessed but still rejected)
Also claimed they won their argument that they are being discriminated against. A challenge they specifically lost but claiming they won because the loans that were expempt is proof of discrimination
Shameless fucks. They look guilty af. This kind of desperation to spin and obfuscate is only likelihood of guilt
This document is above my pay grade. If I speak further, I am in big trouble.
They can’t keep getting away with this – Jesse Pinkman
It’s a bit rich for city to be claiming an unreasonable delay isn’t it?
Where did you get these select shots from the official documents? Obviously this isn’t everything.
If 592 and 593 are the two City won on I can see why they would see that as a win. The first step is to allow associated persons to sponsor a club. The second step is they argue the stupidly inflated sponsorship deal is market value as no one else has won 6 back to back league titles in the modern era so it unprecedented value that no one else can set.
I know this seems dramatic and maybe it is but as someone who’s watched the game since 85, seen the rise of sky pl etc to what it’s now, I’ve been thinking about this for a couple of years. If they’re not adequately punished for the huge amounts of offences, I think I’m properly done with watching and contributing to premier league football. It’s just mental now.
Sigh.
Now its just people who obviously dont comprehend what any of this even means yelling at each other, banging their chests and proclaiming victory for their respective sides.
We as a species truly havent progressed beyond ape status.
I’ve long come to terms with the fact that City are gonna get off with everything due to a poorly written sentence in the contract like Leicester did or some bullshit like that…where they didn’t even dispute breaking FFP rules but instead argued that they were not legally a PL club at the time they were charged.
City legal team will find an ambiguous definition or something and be like “technically we are not a football club according to this definition so cannot be guilty of these charges.
I’d bet my house on it.
Someone dumb this down from lawyer to smart ape please!!
Speaking as a lawyer (but without knowing the details of the relevant transactions) I can foresee a possible new claim now being made by MCFC against the Premier League due to the two unlawful rules ie. due to these unlawful rules MCFC have lost money/interest (ie. they would have obtained if the rules had not been in place in the first place). I don’t know how much, if any, sum MCFC would seek but if very large then all the Premier League teams save for MCFC will bear the cost of these “damages”.
This case is not directly related to the Premier League disciplinary commission which will hear 115 charges against City for allegedly breaching its financial regulations, some of which date back to 2009.
City choosing not to defend themselves (because they can’t?) despite doing absolutely nothing wrong allegedly, and instead targeting the framework of the rules they’ve broken.
A classic. We didn’t break the rules, we just don’t agree with them.
Think a mountain might be making a molehill out of this but if it transpires that it means you can have inflated, I mean totally fair market value sponsorship from companies associated and affiliated with your owners, well, it would be hilarious.
At least now we all get the joy of watching City cut their nose off to spite their face and they get to sit here with the rest of us and watch as Newcastle, who are about ten times as wealthy as City, buy all their players and streak past them. Like they did to everyone else.
Enjoy your trophies while they last 😂
“Premier League attack City because of bad racism. Huge victory for our beloved ~~UAE~~ Man City”.
— The Times
I kind of understand why this is how it is. The Prem’ do try and control a lot and with the expectation your club has to be profitable but also be entertaining, it’s difficult.
I wonder whether sponsorship deals like Paramont Plus for Chelsea would go through now ?