It is slowly coming together.  The owners get so much criticism, some deserved.  The club has had a complete overhaul, top to bottom, side to side.  Any organization would struggle with that much change, and we saw that manifest on the pitch.  Completely arbitrary, but I always thought it would take 3 years for this to settle down.  There are signs that is coming together.

More importantly, Premier League data supports that.  There is momentum and a pattern - the trend is very positive.  There will be bumps, but I do believe we are on a solid path to reestablish ourselves as a top 4 club.  Here is the data:

Period / Position / Sample size

• 2022-23 season / 12th / 38 games
• 2023 - 24 season / 6th / 38 games

Custom dates

• Aug 1 2023 to today / 5th / 43 games
• Oct 1 2023 to today / 4th / 36 games
• Jan 1 2024 to today / 4th / 23 games
• Mar 1 2024 to today / 3rd / 18 games
• May 1 2024 to today / 1st / 10 games

I don't love the smaller sample of May and not suggesting we are contenders to win the league.  I am simply saying the curve is moving in the right direction.

 

On 26/09/2024 at 15:17, dkw said:

I guarantee theres at least one try on hard on here who will say they like him 😅

I quite like him…..at least more than wacko….

 

 

 

 

……who is he?

8 hours ago, terraloon said:

Quite an interesting insight into two issues

1) The revamp of the medical team and whilst historically it’s difficult to argue with the stats being quoted but for a variety of reasons the medical team was going to change I would imagine a deep dive into the numbers would show them worsening over the last few years.
Hopefully we should witness the merit or otherwise of those changes this season it being the first that we can assess the competence of the completed revamped medical team

2) Although I take a little of what is being said re the Eva incident with a pinch of salt the clear suggestion is that Jose was reacting in the heat of the moment and that rather than seeking confrontation the matter could have been sorted out far more amicably 

Interesting that he says he came in the next day and apologized to Jose and presumably Carneiro did not. He stayed, she didn't.  

 

https://www.thechelseachronicle.com/news/investor-who-pumped-500m-into-chelsea-in-talks-over-6bn-valued-takeover-in-the-usa/

The section around PSR and how we are trying to get round it, I found interesting.

Read somewhere the club were waiting on the decision of this case before getting a new shirt sponsor. Makes sense. 
 

 

So city have won their courtcase on the restrictions on sponsorships through related companies, apparently we (and other clubs) gave evidence in support of City. 

I may be giving the owners too much credit, but I wonder if this is why were haven't got a front of shirt sponsor yet? Waiting for the ruling so we can exploit it too?

Could be back to Paramount after this.

34 minutes ago, Niall1905 said:

So city have won their courtcase on the restrictions on sponsorships through related companies, apparently we (and other clubs) gave evidence in support of City. 

I may be giving the owners too much credit, but I wonder if this is why were haven't got a front of shirt sponsor yet? Waiting for the ruling so we can exploit it too?

 

11 minutes ago, Ajbod said:

Could be back to Paramount after this.

Qatar Airways, Riyadh Air or Turkish Airlines. 

Those are the 3 the club are working with. Without a doubt had we already reached an agreement the deal would've been investigated by the Premier League over the sponsorship amount. Much like Infinite Athlete. We can only conclude ownership were waiting on the outcome of this City case to actually strike a deal. 

Qatar Airways would be a long term deal offering potentially just as much as Infinite Athlete. 

 

53 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Read somewhere the club were waiting on the decision of this case before getting a new shirt sponsor. Makes sense. 
 

 

I love this...2 fingers up at the corrupt FA for clubs trying to find loopholes in their stupid rules and monopoly.

 

2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

 

Qatar Airways, Riyadh Air or Turkish Airlines. 

Those are the 3 the club are working with. Without a doubt had we already reached an agreement the deal would've been investigated by the Premier League over the sponsorship amount. Much like Infinite Athlete. We can only conclude ownership were waiting on the outcome of this City case to actually strike a deal. 

Qatar Airways would be a long term deal offering potentially just as much as Infinite Athlete. 

 

But won't there still be a " fair market value" rule that clubs are required to meet ?

EDIT 

Appears that the illegal part of sponsorship rules was that the PL decided on market value.

So, in future the onus is on the clubs to prove FMV. Does that mean the PL have to accept the figures without question ?

 

 

I also noted from the BBC that the ruling says that Citeh are free to sue the PL for various things., which apparently they intend to do.

Either way, great to see the PL f**king themselves up again.😂

 

Edited October 7, 20241 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

8 hours ago, Niall1905 said:

So city have won their courtcase on the restrictions on sponsorships through related companies, apparently we (and other clubs) gave evidence in support of City. 

I may be giving the owners too much credit, but I wonder if this is why were haven't got a front of shirt sponsor yet? Waiting for the ruling so we can exploit it too?

City's statement is grossly hyperbolised. 

The Tribunal found that the PL's decisions to deny their sponsorships were reasonable, The Tribunal also broadly ruled that the APT Rules were lawful and a necessary power of the PL to regulate the competition. This was City's 'Hail Mary' play to undermine the PL's case over their 115 charges, and on that point it has likely failed.

The Tribunal did find two cases with procedural flaws where the PL delayed their decision beyond the time limit stated in the Rules. They also found that the Rules did not allow clubs to see the third-party evidence used by the PL in its Fair Market Value calculations prior to the decision/appeal, and ruled this was procedurally unfair and inconsistent with UK law. As a result, it appears that PL clubs will now be able to see the value of deals made by other clubs that are used for comparison by the PL.

However, City did "win" the point that shareholder contributions, being excluded from the APT rules, create a distortion of competition. The Tribunal held this point and have decided that shareholder contributions from owners (such as no-interest loans etc) must now be assessed for Fair Market Value. This is potentially a huge restriction that impacts clubs like Chelsea, Liverpool and Man United; Clearlake, FSG and Ratcliffe can no longer just give their club a £100m no-interest loan to cover operating costs, any loan would have to be paid back by the club at market interest. 

It's worthwhile noting that the PL clubs themselves voted for shareholder contributions to be excluded, to encourage investment by owners. Given their recent success and financial situation as a result, Man City don't care about the impact of this change, but it will likely hamstring clubs down the ladder. It seems Man City, having not got their way with regard to APT, have taken the ball and gone home.

9 hours ago, Ajbod said:

Could be back to Paramount after this.

Different issue, Paramount are a rival brand to the competition's main broadcasters (they compete for football streaming rights globally) and so the PL retains a right of veto.

This is a fairly standard condition across sporting competitions, it happens here in Australia a lot as sports teams don't own their own stadiums and so competition sponsors often conflict with stadium sponsors. For example, during the Women's World Cup and AFC Champions League the stadium sponsorship is covered up to allow only FIFA or AFC approved sponsors.

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

But won't there still be a " fair market value" rule that clubs are required to meet ?

EDIT 

Appears that the illegal part of sponsorship rules was that the PL decided on market value.

So, in future the onus is on the clubs to prove FMV. Does that mean the PL have to accept the figures without question ?

 

 

I also noted from the BBC that the ruling says that Citeh are free to sue the PL for various things., which apparently they intend to do.

Either way, great to see the PL f**king themselves up again.😂

 

Yes, clubs will still be required to meet Fair Market Value. City lost on this point, the Tribunal ruled is lawful and required to preserve the integrity of the PSR rules. 

The bolded part is untrue, and in fact the opposite is correct. The Clubs were required to report an APT, and prove FMV in the first instance. The PL could choose to accept the club's proof, or obtain their own independent valuation. The Tribunal found that this process, to grossly oversimplify, biased the PL process towards rejecting club estimates of FMV.

Going forward the onus is now on the PL to prove that a transaction is not at FMV.

As an aside I thought Man City raised a very good argument on this point, being that there is no single standard method of calculating FMV creating inconsistency in legitimate valuations, and that the PL's methods underestimate the market value of sponsorship to the sponsor. I don't agree with the Tribunal's reasoning on why they declined this point, as it was essentially a greater good argument -  "yes we accept this, but the PL must do something to ensure fair competition so therefore the Rules must stand".  I don't think that it addresses the substantive issue that valuations are inherently subjective and inconsistent, a point that PL themselves conceded. City's argument echoes this legal criticism of UEFA's version of these rules.

The issue is whether the PL or other regulatory bodies actually have a right to limit on what a sponsor considers reasonable investment. It is possible that a sponsor like Infinite Athlete, a relatively small and new business, might intentionally overspend on their sponsorship of Chelsea because their goal is supercharging their brand recognition, not fair value. It's a risk taken by the sponsor, not the club. An example of this would be Samsung's sponsorship of Chelsea and other sports clubs/competitions during its mid-2000s boom to become one of the world's biggest brands.

There's a bigger game at play apparently...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/07/manchester-city-premier-league-tribunal-victory-claim

I bet the PL are frantically going through the rulebook with a fine tooth comb atm...problem is, its already written, lol.

Who decides a fair market value, how can that even be done. The value is from the company/organisation willing to pay it, same as anything on the market. Known entity Adidas sponsoring a football club is entirely different to say Qatar sponsoring a club, they are attempting to legitimise themselves as a sporting venue, so they are willing to overpay for the privilege of sponsoring all kinds, knowing their value will come down the line.

Lets be real here, the whole FFP, PSR, Superleague and even back to the G14 cabal is all about keeping the "historical" big boys at the top of the table, and making sure no horrible upstarts can break in. you only need look at which clubs are driving all this. So basically, f**k em, good on City.

I mean fair play to City. They’ve got my full respect for this and I hope they squash those ridiculous ‘115 charges’ as well. 
Do believe we’ve had a FOS Sponsor lined up for some time and were waiting on the outcome of this to announce it officially as it’ll probably be moaned about by others of not being fair.

 

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Who decides a fair market value, how can that even be done. The value is from the company/organisation willing to pay it, same as anything on the market. Known entity Adidas sponsoring a football club is entirely different to say Qatar sponsoring a club, they are attempting to legitimise themselves as a sporting venue, so they are willing to overpay for the privilege of sponsoring all kinds, knowing their value will come down the line.

Lets be real here, the whole FFP, PSR, Superleague and even back to the G14 cabal is all about keeping the "historical" big boys at the top of the table, and making sure no horrible upstarts can break in. you only need look at which clubs are driving all this. So basically, f**k em, good on City.

Absolutely. The rules are ridiculous, the evidence doesn't even support that they work with more lower league clubs in financial peril than ever, and they have throttled competition in the league and in Europe.

 

Got to be honest, I can't get my head around what is happening here.

Are City trying to get rules changed/ruled unlawful so that they are free to sponsor themselves 5 billion quid a week from a family business?

or

Are City trying to make things better for everyone else so even Ipswich can get huge sponsor deals so that they can potentially compete with City on an even financial footing?

I find it hard to imagine that City are doing this for everyone's benefit, but maybe they are? When you win the league every year already, what more advantage do you need?

Can anyone explain this from a reasonably neutral perspective?

1 hour ago, Snedger said:

Got to be honest, I can't get my head around what is happening here.

Are City trying to get rules changed/ruled unlawful so that they are free to sponsor themselves 5 billion quid a week from a family business?

or

Are City trying to make things better for everyone else so even Ipswich can get huge sponsor deals so that they can potentially compete with City on an even financial footing?

I find it hard to imagine that City are doing this for everyone's benefit, but maybe they are? When you win the league every year already, what more advantage do you need?

Can anyone explain this from a reasonably neutral perspective?

My understanding is it's the opposite...I could be completely wrong though. Lol

 

Shareholders can't just loan money to the club and not be included in the psr calculations anymore (so I'd guess we'd be fkd if we still had the 1.5bil loan from roman still on the books).

But the bigger picture for man city is they are pushing towards the PL rules aren't fit for purpose. Along with Leicester's ruling and now theres, it adds weight to fighting the next battle...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/08/manchester-city-tribunal-premier-league-football

 

And now there's this...lol

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/08/manchester-city-premier-league-accusations-tribunal-verdict

“The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC’s position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021.”

 

Fk knows mate...one thing for sure, the media are reporting it through gritted teeth. 🤣 

Edited October 8, 20241 yr by Simplymo

I forgot to add the text from the first link...sry, multitasking again, I'm useless at it.

🤦‍♂️

So...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/08/manchester-city-tribunal-premier-league-football

Does this mean the end of APT rules?

No. A broad range of further City challenges were rejected. The judges on the panel found there was no evidence the rules lacked transparency (unlike Uefa’s rules relating to new competitions, as per the European Super League case). They found they did not distort competition or player trading. In fact the panel said there was sufficient evidence for the league to tighten its rules as it did. The Premier League believes its rules can be amended in short order to take into account the considerations of the verdict.

 

And...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/oct/08/manchester-city-premier-league-accusations-tribunal-verdict

 

“The tribunal has declared the APT rules to be unlawful. MCFC’s position is that this means that all of the APT rules are void, and have been since 2021.”

The league is understood to have called a clubs meeting to discuss making changes to the rules. Cliff said this was not the time for a “kneejerk reaction” in revising the rules, which he warned could lead to further legal proceedings. He said there needed to be “careful reflection” on how to proceed.

 

I think there's more to come...lol

This link is better I think. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c33vj62p4gzo

He added: "While it is true that MCFC did not succeed with every point that it ran in its legal challenge, the club did not need to prove that the APT rules are unlawful for lots of different reasons. It is enough that they are unlawful for one reason."

Cliff added that it was "not correct that the tribunal’s decision identifies 'certain discrete elements' of the APT rules that need to be amended in order to comply with competition and public law requirements".

He added: "On the contrary: the APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law. This means that they are void and not capable of enforcement. This has very significant consequences for APTs that have been entered into to date and APTs that are currently being negotiated by clubs.

"Of even greater concern, however, is the PL's suggestion that new APT rules should be passed within the next 10 days."

The Premier League is seeking to amend its rules within the next fortnight so that they comply with competition law.

The tribunal - in a 175-page document - ruled that low-interest shareholder loans from owners to their clubs should not be excluded from the scope of APT rules, and that some amendments to toughen up the rules in February by should not be retained.

However Cliff warns that it is "remarkable that the Premier League is now seeking to involve the member clubs in a process to amend the APT rules at a time when it does not even know the status of those rules".

He added: "We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction.

"Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator."

 

Edited October 8, 20241 yr by Simplymo

Thanks for the informative posts. Still not sure I really get the significance or consequence of all this. But I feel fairly safe in assuming that whatever happens, City will continue to will the PL title every year.

2 minutes ago, Snedger said:

Thanks for the informative posts. Still not sure I really get the significance or consequence of all this. But I feel fairly safe in assuming that whatever happens, City will continue to will the PL title every year.

Mate...I got screwed by the wording for the first link.

 

So now I understand it as the APT (all of it) is actually null and void and PL want to rush and get it done within the next 2 weeks. The first guardian link was very smart with its wording...I fell for it, bloody multitasking. Lol

It's not the "end of APT rules" but current one is null and void according to the mc letter and the whole rush to get it done by the PL.