Football club finances / FFP

[moomba]

If you were to drill down into every rule and regulation there would be the potential for slight amendments needed in law.


Pre Brexit your club receiving substantial state based aid was probably a breach of the law too.

Ha ha.

 

[Zidane98]

Ha ha.

An interesting response for someone allegedly concerned with the law. Doesn't apply to Man City now England is outside the Euro zone but PSG are getting done for this as we speak.

There may still be a case due to your participation in European tournaments too if it is determined European courts have jurisdiction.

A change in EU law is down to the introduction of the new EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which means the EC is no longer restricted to probing state aid that originates from within the EU.

 

[moomba]

An interesting response for someone allegedly concerned with the law. Doesn't apply to Man City now England is outside the Euro zone but PSG are getting done for this as we speak.

There may still be a case due to your participation in European tournaments too if it is determined European courts have jurisdiction.

A change in EU law is down to the introduction of the new EU Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which means the EC is no longer restricted to probing state aid that originates from within the EU.

You saying something is against the law isn't the same thing as something being against the law.

If a football rule is unlawful, and it's changed because it is unlawful I fully support it being changed.

I certainly won't moan about it as much as you are.

 

[moomba]

Wow.

 

[Zidane98]

What a shambles of a club trying to run the Premier League directly and for the benefit of themselves.


Man City wouldn't have done a thing if they got the result on the APT market valuations they wanted. All because they arse salty over not getting the result they wanted on their APT challenges and that the rule will mostly stay the same apart from minor modification.

These findings from the report are telling




Contacting clubs directly attempting to undermine the PL might also be a breach of shareholder rules. Farcical.

 

[Zidane98]

Also, being so willing to burn bridges with the PL and/or shareholders is a possible indicator of what is going to happen in the near future with the 115 charges.

 

[Zidane98]

https://www.thelawyer.com/in-depth-who-actually-won-the-manchester-city-case/

Pretty good summary from both perspectives this one.

 

[Zidane98]

It is noteworthy to point out in the case of the Etihad challenge City challenged the following:

• • that the League had erred in principle in applying the APT rules;
  • that it had not acted with procedural fairness;
  • that it had “reached a decision which could not have been reached by a reasonable Board which had applied its mind properly to the issues to be decided”; and
  • that the length of time taken to reach the two decisions did not comply with the rules.

They lost out on all of these challenges about from the time taken to reach the decision which was found to have taken too long. The valuation was actually found to be correct by the tribunal.

Also worth noting that City accused the PL of "discriminating against Gulf ownership". This challenge was absolutely dismissed by then tribunal.

 

[moomba]

Contacting clubs directly attempting to undermine the PL might also be a breach of shareholder rules. Farcical.

Ha ha, another Zidane98 charge against us.

 

[moomba]

Man City wouldn't have done a thing if they got the result on the APT market valuations they wanted. All because they arse salty over not getting the result they wanted on their APT challenges and that the rule will mostly stay the same apart from minor modification.

We initiated proceedings on January 24. The board made a decision on fair market value on April 25.

We must be smarter than I thought.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Zidane98 v moomba

 

[Zidane98]

Zidane98 v moomba

No point winning the fight because Moomba would appeal the loss with CAS, Royal High Court & International Criminal Court.

 

[moomba]

Could you be any more of a baby?

 

[moomba]

This is brilliant. We hired Nielsen to give a fair market value assessment for a new Etihad sponsorship. We submitted the deal to the league for approval.

The league sat on it for five months before rejecting the deal as it was deemed to be above market value. The company they used to establish fair market value - Nielsen using the same methodology they used for the assessment they gave us.

 

[moomba]

 

[moomba]

If only it wasn't that clueless idiot Wyness I'd be celebrating.

 

[moomba]

Listening to a podcast on the decision yesterday, it looks like once the unlawful parts of the February amendments are removed there won't be much left.

The original APT rules, won't change much.

Two of the sponsorships which the league rejected as above fair market value will have to be assessed again.

The Etihad one in particular stands a good chance of getting approved, as the league used as the basis for rejection a market value which was below the value the same organisation using the same methodology provided to the club before it was submitted.

League might have some explaining to so on that one, and if we're going to get any compo I think it will be this deal. As it is the league took over a year to make a decision in the first place so we've lost a fair bit due to their incompetence and unlawful procedures.

 

[moomba]

Another interesting one from the tribunal. The league rejected a third sponsorship as being evidently (clearly) above market value, but when resubmitted with additional info approved the deal as being fair market value six weeks later.

They're a shambles. And coming across as pretty dishonest during and post the tribunal hearing.

 

[Planet14]

Are you trying to convince the rest of us, or just yourself?

 

[Zidane98]

Listening to a podcast on the decision yesterday, it looks like once the unlawful parts of the February amendments are removed there won't be much left.

The original APT rules, won't change much.

Two of the sponsorships which the league rejected as above fair market value will have to be assessed again.

The Etihad one in particular stands a good chance of getting approved, as the league used as the basis for rejection a market value which was below the value the same organisation using the same methodology provided to the club before it was submitted.

League might have some explaining to so on that one, and if we're going to get any compo I think it will be this deal. As it is the league took over a year to make a decision in the first place so we've lost a fair bit due to their incompetence and unlawful procedures.

Of all the FMV challenges City made 23 out of 25 failed completely despite months of work by some of the finest lawyers money can buy in the UK.

Of the other two also 3 out of 4 challenges to them by City also failed including the valuation aspect.

The only two "successes" were procedural issues in the time took to make the decision.

The tribunal absolutely dismissed the claim by City that "gulf ownership" is discriminated against which was shambolic.

The whole FMV challenge was utterly shambolic by City and really shouldn't have been anywhere near a court case. The tribunal agreed with all valuations, agreed on the APT aspect and agreed that the rule in general was needed .

 

[Zidane98]

Are you trying to convince the rest of us, or just yourself?

Himself.

I think he probably realises that it isn't the smartest thing to burn bridges with all other shareholders and the PL itself. City being prepared to do this suggests they themselves probably believe the shit is going to hit the fan over the 115 charges in the near future.

 

[moomba]

Are you trying to convince the rest of us, or just yourself?

Sorry for talking about a pretty significant FFP/PSR related tribunal decision in a FFP/PSR thread.

 

[moomba]

Himself.

I think he probably realises that it isn't the smartest thing to burn bridges with all other shareholders and the PL itself. City being prepared to do this suggests they themselves probably believe the shit is going to hit the fan over the 115 charges in the near future.

Our bridges with about half of a dozen of the clubs in the premier league and the league itself were burned years ago. And I hope we never forget it.

As for the current case, APT has nothing to do with that no matter how many times you tell yourself it does.

I do hope the people responsible for drafting the APT amendments were also responsible for putting the case against us together to be fair.

 

[Planet14]

Sorry for talking about a pretty significant FFP/PSR related tribunal decision in a FFP/PSR thread.

And yet you just bring the pro City propaganda over and over again. Do you think that changes anyone’s mind? What is the objective here?

 

[moomba]

Of all the FMV challenges City made 23 out of 25 failed completely despite months of work by some of the finest lawyers money can buy in the UK.

Of the other two also 3 out of 4 challenges to them by City also failed including the valuation aspect.

The only two "successes" were procedural issues in the time took to make the decision.

The tribunal absolutely dismissed the claim by City that "gulf ownership" is discriminated against which was shambolic.

The whole FMV challenge was utterly shambolic by City and really shouldn't have been anywhere near a court case. The tribunal agreed with all valuations, agreed on the APT aspect and agreed that the rule in general was needed .

You thought that it was against the rules for us to take the league to tribunal. Against the shareholder agreement you said. Illegal you said. Sounds like the judges didn't get the memo.

You thought the only reason we took the league to tribunal was because we were upset that they rejected the Etihad deal. Despite the deal not being rejected until months after we initiated the case.

You thought that the league won despite their rules being deemed unlawful, and both decisions on sponsorships being set aside.

You thought that it would be quick and easy to amend the rules. Now we hear the league admit that it's going to take a lot longer than their initial statement suggested.

It must be hard to be you right now.