777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:43 pm
Aren't they linked though. Mitigation for all the other charges is this illegal rule?? Also if you now don't need fair market value isn't ffp dead
Both sides claiming they won
The verdict upheld two of City’s arguments but most of them were thrown out
I imagine we supported City on this so we can get our own overinflated naming rights
777Kidnappings wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:43 pm
Aren't they linked though. Mitigation for all the other charges is this illegal rule?? Also if you now don't need fair market value isn't ffp dead
For some of them I'd imagine yes.
Some of the other charges are for things like falsifying financial documents, hiding money etc. Will likely mitigate some of the charges but I'd imagine not all of them as they are made up of a litany of different things.
As has been mentioned, I think we will likely have backed them on this particular issue so TFG can sponsor the stadium with one of their own companies to maximise our potential.
Struggling to care about any of this. Just pisses me off the way the rest of the Sly 6 go on as if they've been hard done by. Chelsea, Arsenal and Man United have been spending money like crazy (without selling). The rules apply to them in theory but not in reality.
Pretty much everything about Man City is horrible but the horse has bolted. PSG, Man City, Newcastle... Whatever. Whatever the outcome of this case, it will have no positive affect on anyone outside the Sly 6.
Heard we (like all other clubs) are still to pay 2.5m of the league's lawyer costs for the City case. Can that be right?
And I dont really get why market value couldn't be enforced, there has to be a point at which some clubs can't just write whatever figure they want as sponsorship to cover. Makes more of a mockery of their accountability (or lack thereof) and the accounting profession.
Cods wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 8:38 am
Heard we (like all other clubs) are still to pay 2.5m of the league's lawyer costs for the City case. Can that be right?
And I dont really get why market value couldn't be enforced, there has to be a point at which some clubs can't just write whatever figure they want as sponsorship to cover. Makes more of a mockery of their accountability (or lack thereof) and the accounting profession.
1 of the arguments they won on was that fair market value wasn't being enforced on shareholder loans.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the PL whatsoever. They allowed Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and astronomically rich (by any means) people to pass their fit and proper person's test and then bleat about them spending money. The problem is caused by them.
If you don't want massively inflated sponsorship deals, don't allow these takeovers in the first place. The PL has happily chased every passing cash cow and milked it to death since it's inception.
If they aren't interested in bringing in German style ownership and a salary cap to maintain competition then they've created the problem themselves and they just need to stop this endless ridiculous litigation dragging on for season after season. Last year the farce around us and Forest and what points we actually had or didn't was absurd and this is potentially going to mean retrospectively reallocating titles. VAR pisses me off and that changes the score 5mins later, not 5 or 10 plus years.
Plus, as said above, the idea that the PL "winning" the case helps anyone beyond the established CL clubs is also completely fanciful.
In a world full of adversity, we must still dare to dream.
MAJOR BREAKING: A tribunal has deemed the Premier League's sponsorship rules NULL AND VOID, with an independent panel siding with #ManCity and deeming that Associated Party Transaction regulations were unlawful in their entirety.
weimaranerblues wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 6:19 pm
MAJOR BREAKING: A tribunal has deemed the Premier League's sponsorship rules NULL AND VOID, with an independent panel siding with #ManCity and deeming that Associated Party Transaction regulations were unlawful in their entirety.
Looking forward to Man City signing a new £4bn a season shirt sponsorship deal on Monday
Second time now the Premier League's rules have been found to have no legal standing (Leicester overspending in the championship)... and City are contesting the new sponsorship rules too so that one may well be found unenforceable too.
Makes you wonder if us or Forest had argued it in the courts whether we'd have avoided the points deductions, instead we played nice and just took it on the chin!
weimaranerblues wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 6:19 pm
MAJOR BREAKING: A tribunal has deemed the Premier League's sponsorship rules NULL AND VOID, with an independent panel siding with #ManCity and deeming that Associated Party Transaction regulations were unlawful in their entirety.
That decision actually suits the Premier League quite perversely. It saves the way for them to allow Man City to get away with flouting the rules without losing too much face. "We tried our best to enforce the rules, but the pesky courts.ruled against us, so our hands are tied!"
74Blue wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 11:18 pm
That decision actually suits the Premier League quite perversely. It saves the way for them to allow Man City to get away with flouting the rules without losing too much face. "We tried our best to enforce the rules, but the pesky courts.ruled against us, so our hands are tied!"
Cozzie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 09, 2025 5:22 pm
They will go unpunished like but isn't the verdict of their hearing due very soon?
Sure I heard it was around Easter time.
Was due February. Then imminently. And latest I read this week was 'Hopefully before the start of next season'.
Feels like they're going to get away with it, and the league are trying to workout what they can do to tame the wrath of angry red coloured teams expecting to be gifted retrospective trophies.
