14 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.

Read the summary/analysis at the bottom of this link. It's all there and hopefully that will help. But as it says...this thing ain't over yet. Lol

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

Edited October 8, 20241 yr by Simplymo

13 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

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.

Thanks for the info mate 👍

23 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. 

 

I can't see any advantage for not having a front of shirt sponsor up to now.

The decision in the City case doesn't mean we can get unrealistic, inflated sponsorship deals either from  associated partners or others . Unless I'm misunderstanding everything?

Just now, The Rising Sun said:

I can't see any advantage for not having a front of shirt sponsor up to now.

The decision in the City case doesn't mean we can get unrealistic, inflated sponsorship deals either from  associated partners or others . Unless I'm misunderstanding everything?

If the APT is void as mcfc are saying then there are no rules atm in rgds to sponsorship.

I'm loving the sh*t show....lol

On 04/10/2024 at 14:46, PhilH930 said:

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.

 

Yes we are improving, and I am pleased with the style of football we are trying to implement, and I like the manager.

BUT ...I can't ignore that the owners took us from a regular top 4, Champion's League club and in one season brought us down to 12th, and now the 3rd season in a row without CL football.

But hopefully it's looking better for the future.

13 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

If the APT is void as mcfc are saying then there are no rules atm in rgds to sponsorship.

I'm loving the sh*t show....lol

Yeah, just seen that Citeh have written to PL clubs saying that the PL are misleading clubs about the verdict.

That the PL decisions on APT sponsorship's were illegal and therefore void !

I hope that report is accurate

The international break has become enjoyable!

13 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Yeah, just seen that Citeh have written to PL clubs saying that the PL are misleading clubs about the verdict.

That the PL decisions on APT sponsorship's were illegal and therefore void !

I hope that report is accurate

The international break has become enjoyable!

I think the BBC one was the clearest of the lot. Guardian did a play on words and I'm really annoyed I fell for it too...I'm blaming the phone call I was on at the time.

 

Man city are threatening legal action if the PL rush and create new set of rules. 😆 

This is fkn hilarious tbh...

 

 

Waiting for someone to confirm but if so...

 

Well played Man City.

By arguing FMV (something which some would expect city to abuse, lol) they have voided the whole of APT rules all together and are threatening the PL with further legal action if they rush new rules in. 🤣 

 

Edited October 8, 20241 yr by Simplymo

31 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

Waiting for someone to confirm but if so...

 

Well played Man City.

By arguing FMV (something which some would expect city to abuse, lol) they have voided the whole of APT rules all together and are threatening the PL with further legal action if they rush new rules in. 🤣 

 

I'm with you mate, thank God Citeh have taken on that corrupt mob and their rules to prevent anyone from challenging their old favourites, pleased that Chelsea supported them too.

 

37 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

Waiting for someone to confirm but if so...

 

Well played Man City.

By arguing FMV (something which some would expect city to abuse, lol) they have voided the whole of APT rules all together and are threatening the PL with further legal action if they rush new rules in. 🤣 

 

And, as a big bonus,it seems that Citeh's insistence that shareholder loans should be included in financial calculations (and was agreed by the inquiry), might be a problem for Arsenal, with their £200m loan.

😂 

2 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I'm with you mate, thank God Citeh have taken on that corrupt mob and their rules to prevent anyone from challenging their old favourites, pleased that Chelsea supported them too.

 

Yeah, I really hate the FA, UEFA and fifa.

All fkn corrupt. I remember when the whole sepp blatter thing happened and just waiting for the FA's turn. 

Once it's all clear then this opens a lot of options for our owners I guess. I don't think anyone expected this result if the man city statement is true and APT is now completely void!

3 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

And, as a big bonus,it seems that Citeh's insistence that shareholder loans should be included in financial calculations (and was agreed by the inquiry), might be a problem for Arsenal, with their £200m loan.

😂

So many clubs have shareholder loans, so many squeaky bums in executive offices today. Lol

But they had a saving grace....

"On shareholder loans, league officials believe a fair market value analysis of such borrowings would be placed on the cost of the loan (i.e. the interest rate), not the value of the loan itself, and that the impact on clubs, therefore, would be minimal."

 

But if it's all void now according to man city...then !!!!????

Still no confirmation on clarity yet.

Just now, Simplymo said:

So many clubs have shareholder loans, so many squeaky bums in executive offices today. Lol

But they had a saving grace....

"On shareholder loans, league officials believe a fair market value analysis of such borrowings would be placed on the cost of the loan (i.e. the interest rate), not the value of the loan itself, and that the impact on clubs, therefore, would be minimal."

 

But if it's all void now according to man city...then !!!!????

Still no confirmation on clarity yet.

And I've read elsewhere that it's the total value of the loan.

And my joy was short lived anyway when I then read that we have £140m in shareholder loans !

Another piece said it can't be applied retrospectively. But who knows, it keeps changing over the course of the day.

In the NowArsenal blog it said the loan helped to finance transfers, but surely that can't be the case because it has to come solely from the club's income?.

Best international break ever !

The PL clubs are meeting soon, should be lively!

I assume that the bit that impacts us most is the stuff around fair market value (as we dont have owner loans at the moment). 

So my question is - what is the test we as a club have to satisfy to determine if any deal is fair market value. For example, if 1 company - linked to clearlake, but not part of blue co came and offered a 1 year shirt deal for £100million, and it is now no longer the premier leagues job/decision to confer FMV - how does that get tested/challenged. I assume we dont have carte blanche on this, but equally who is to say that it is not fair value?

10 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I assume that the bit that impacts us most is the stuff around fair market value (as we dont have owner loans at the moment). 

So my question is - what is the test we as a club have to satisfy to determine if any deal is fair market value. For example, if 1 company - linked to clearlake, but not part of blue co came and offered a 1 year shirt deal for £100million, and it is now no longer the premier leagues job/decision to confer FMV - how does that get tested/challenged. I assume we dont have carte blanche on this, but equally who is to say that it is not fair value?

One of Citeh's complaints is that the PL used their own comparison database to make decisions, but club's didn't have any access to it to confirm if the decision is fair.

And I read that we DO have shareholder loans of £140m, but who knows?

The fact that both sides claimed victory just shows how contradictory it all is.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

And I've read elsewhere that it's the total value of the loan.

And my joy was short lived anyway when I then read that we have £140m in shareholder loans !

Another piece said it can't be applied retrospectively. But who knows, it keeps changing over the course of the day.

In the NowArsenal blog it said the loan helped to finance transfers, but surely that can't be the case because it has to come solely from the club's income?.

Best international break ever !

The PL clubs are meeting soon, should be lively!

I would love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting! Would fkn love it!!!

 

1 hour ago, nonotnowjim said:

I assume that the bit that impacts us most is the stuff around fair market value (as we dont have owner loans at the moment). 

So my question is - what is the test we as a club have to satisfy to determine if any deal is fair market value. For example, if 1 company - linked to clearlake, but not part of blue co came and offered a 1 year shirt deal for £100million, and it is now no longer the premier leagues job/decision to confer FMV - how does that get tested/challenged. I assume we dont have carte blanche on this, but equally who is to say that it is not fair value?

If ATP is void...

It doesn't get challenged, what for? There's no rule saying it should even be challenged. There's no rules period. 

😂

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

One of Citeh's complaints is that the PL used their own comparison database to make decisions, but club's didn't have any access to it to confirm if the decision is fair.

And I read that we DO have shareholder loans of £140m, but who knows?

The fact that both sides claimed victory just shows how contradictory it all is.

 

 

so for all 3 posts above...My understanding is if the APT is void, then none of that actually matters. 😆 

-So no rules about FMV and share holder loans. Technically if void, alls good in love and war baby, lol.

-Here's a shirt deal for 5bn!? 😆 

-Clubs don't have to worry about share holder loans or who does what in rgds to sponsorship.

-And if the Premier league tries to create new rules as quickly as within 2 weeks then man city has threatened to hit them with an injunction to stop it. 

 

There are reporters, editors and the fkn coffee & copier guys (sry have to call them runners now, pc bo**ocks) pulling their hair out atm trying to confirm and make sense of this and how it affects every club!

Don't forget that if it's completely void then not only man city, but any club can ask the PL for compensation or damages if they think the PL has done them over, over current or past sponsorship deals. 

And now the narrative about this having no affect on the 115 charges is being quietly and quickly withdrawn or edited out.

🤣🤣🤣

Oh and the PL "money" is actually money provided by the top flight club's. Its split between them.

I read a few weeks back the bill has hit 45mil or something. So in rgds to that meeting with other clubs, they will have to discuss if they want to continue to pursue man city!

Edited October 8, 20241 yr by Simplymo
Forgot the bill bit

Sad that I am I have actually read the commissions report in full something that I very much doubt that a majority of even City supporters have taken the time to do.

What is very interesting is that the “ City expert “ on such matters Stefan Bronson who by trade is a Lawyer and is a regular on Talksport doesn’t see it as a clear cut victory for City and that very much how I view it. It’s a quite amusing as he is being rounded on by his fellow City supporters because he doesn’t see it close to the victory that they and indeed City themselves are suggesting.

City threw everything at this matter and whilst they clearly have had success following rule changes  linked to associated party transactions but the basic concept of associated Party Transactions linked to PSR hasn’t been ruled against.

The basic background is that City have some major new sponsorship deals on the table . The process defined in those rule changes I talk about bought two things to the party

1) The requirement to detail deals between associated parties onto a data base which is used to enable the PL to arrive with the help of an independent organisation to determine if they represent fair and market value. The panel didn’t dismiss the approach but the fact that City didn’t ( or indeed any club) to in effect have access to that data base or effective input into the decision making process  was an argument city won.

2) Some of the wording in the rules were clumsy for instance the use of the word would instead of could was again something that the panel ruled in Cities favour. In addition the fact that the PL rules required the club to justify the value of such transactions whereas the panels view was the onus was on the PL to disprove 

 

The impact of 1& 2 is that the process deployed to disallow these new sponsorship deals was a breech of competition laws . It’s important to note that here it’s about  the process hence why the phrase unlawful was used

When it comes to owner loans this really isn’t the issue that is being made out. Those that facilitate these loans are in the main very rich individuals who in reality know that in normal trading it’s unlikely that they will ever see the capital refunded indeed if they ever get the loans back it will be part of the condition of  future sale, if one were to happen  . Turning these loans into equity may well damage a tax plan but in one it will avoid the question of any notional sum having to be factored into PSR calculations. 

Another way to side step the issue won’t require the loans to be converted into equity more that existing loans are renegotiated to include interest which in turn is paid to the owner who then simply injects that sum back to the club by way of a APT compliant sponsorship deal.

I do wonder why our owners supported Cities case. We simply don’t know what their angle is. My guess is it’s two fold first will be around sponsorship from companies linked to the owners be it owned by them or there is a clear link to Clearlake etc . The second will be around  their movement or sale of assets from CFC Ltd to BlueCo and in particular the sale of a% of the woman’s team.

Finally we know that PSR as it is in its last throes I suspect that we will now see a suspension of the amended APT  rules  and maybe the older version is re instated but come the 25/26 trading year the new rules will include APT but written in accord with panel’s directive and also those soft loans will be included one way or another in a clubs expenditure 

 

Finally Finally Leicester first and now City by testing rules have actually played into the PLs hands because the new rules will be far more robust 

8 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

I would love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting! Would fkn love it!!!

 

If ATP is void...

It doesn't get challenged, what for? There's no rule saying it should even be challenged. There's no rules period. 

😂

 

 

so for all 3 posts above...My understanding is if the APT is void, then none of that actually matters. 😆 

-So no rules about FMV and share holder loans. Technically if void, alls good in love and war baby, lol.

-Here's a shirt deal for 5bn!? 😆 

-Clubs don't have to worry about share holder loans or who does what in rgds to sponsorship.

-And if the Premier league tries to create new rules as quickly as within 2 weeks then man city has threatened to hit them with an injunction to stop it. 

 

There are reporters, editors and the fkn coffee & copier guys (sry have to call them runners now, pc bo**ocks) pulling their hair out atm trying to confirm and make sense of this and how it affects every club!

Don't forget that if it's completely void then not only man city, but any club can ask the PL for compensation or damages if they think the PL has done them over, over current or past sponsorship deals. 

And now the narrative about this having no affect on the 115 charges is being quietly and quickly withdrawn or edited out.

🤣🤣🤣

Oh and the PL "money" is actually money provided by the top flight club's. Its split between them.

I read a few weeks back the bill has hit 45mil or something. So in rgds to that meeting with other clubs, they will have to discuss if they want to continue to pursue man city!

I know what you are saying, but other reports say APT rules stay in force. And the PL will ask clubs to agree to a couple of rule changes to address the problems identified by the investigation.

I prefer other reports that basically say as all the decisions on ATP were illegal, they all need to be reviewed.

The legal costs for the PL are mounting, and if City sue the PL it'll be more legal costs etc

Go on City, go for em !

 

 

10 minutes ago, terraloon said:

Sad that I am I have actually read the commissions report in full something that I very much doubt that a majority of even City supporters have taken the time to do.

What is very interesting is that the “ City expert “ on such matters Stefan Bronson who by trade is a Lawyer and is a regular on Talksport doesn’t see it as a clear cut victory for City and that very much how I view it. It’s a quite amusing as he is being rounded on by his fellow City supporters because he doesn’t see it close to the victory that they and indeed City themselves are suggesting.

City threw everything at this matter and whilst they clearly have had success following rule changes  linked to associated party transactions but the basic concept of associated Party Transactions linked to PSR hasn’t been ruled against.

The basic background is that City have some major new sponsorship deals on the table . The process defined in those rule changes I talk about bought two things to the party

1) The requirement to detail deals between associated parties onto a data base which is used to enable the PL to arrive with the help of an independent organisation to determine if they represent fair and market value. The panel didn’t dismiss the approach but the fact that City didn’t ( or indeed any club) to in effect have access to that data base or effective input into the decision making process  was an argument city won.

2) Some of the wording in the rules were clumsy for instance the use of the word would instead of could was again something that the panel ruled in Cities favour. In addition the fact that the PL rules required the club to justify the value of such transactions whereas the panels view was the onus was on the PL to disprove 

 

The impact of 1& 2 is that the process deployed to disallow these new sponsorship deals was a breech of competition laws . It’s important to note that here it’s about  the process hence why the phrase unlawful was used

When it comes to owner loans this really isn’t the issue that is being made out. Those that facilitate these loans are in the main very rich individuals who in reality know that in normal trading it’s unlikely that they will ever see the capital refunded indeed if they ever get the loans back it will be part of the condition of  future sale, if one were to happen  . Turning these loans into equity may well damage a tax plan but in one it will avoid the question of any notional sum having to be factored into PSR calculations. 

Another way to side step the issue won’t require the loans to be converted into equity more that existing loans are renegotiated to include interest which in turn is paid to the owner who then simply injects that sum back to the club by way of a APT compliant sponsorship deal.

I do wonder why our owners supported Cities case. We simply don’t know what their angle is. My guess is it’s two fold first will be around sponsorship from companies linked to the owners be it owned by them or there is a clear link to Clearlake etc . The second will be around  their movement or sale of assets from CFC Ltd to BlueCo and in particular the sale of a% of the woman’s team.

Finally we know that PSR as it is in its last throes I suspect that we will now see a suspension of the amended APT  rules  and maybe the older version is re instated but come the 25/26 trading year the new rules will include APT but written in accord with panel’s directive and also those soft loans will be included one way or another in a clubs expenditure 

 

Finally Finally Leicester first and now City by testing rules have actually played into the PLs hands because the new rules will be far more robust 

Thanks for your informative comment mate.,👍

Not what I wanted the outcome to be though!

16 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

1) I know what you are saying, but other reports say APT rules stay in force.

2) And the PL will ask clubs to agree to a couple of rule changes to address the problems identified by the investigation.

3) I prefer other reports that basically say as all the decisions on ATP were illegal, they all need to be reviewed.

4) The legal costs for the PL are mounting, and if City sue the PL it'll be more legal costs etc

Go on City, go for em !

 

1) That's the point awaiting confirmation. Until now man city says the ruling means all is void. Not just the 2 points they won.

If one part of the ATP is unlawful then ATP as a whole is void. "APT rules... have been found to be unlawful, as a matter of competition law and public law"

2) if they do that, man city has threatened legal action and even litigation to stop the PL making the changes or creating new ones in haste.

3) me tooooo....lol 

4) found the link I mentioned about the bill.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c3wpdqlqjq4o

 

Update:

2) The PL is doubling down though...it says it has spoken to pl clubs in regards to making changes as soon as possible!

 

This whole thing is far from over...

Does anybody else step back and think about how crazy this all is? We have the Premier League and it's clubs in a war against each other. How can this be good for the game in this country?

4 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Does anybody else step back and think about how crazy this all is? We have the Premier League and its clubs in a war against each other. How can this be good for the game in this country?

This country seems to have so many arbitrary rules that, under scrutiny, don't make sense.

Btw

Does anyone know what's happening about the investigation into the secret payments during the Abramovich era ?

Richard Masters the PL CEO said it was ongoing (back in January I think it was)

Can't seem to find anything about it since then.

2 hours ago, timetowaste said:

This country seems to have so many arbitrary rules that, under scrutiny, don't make sense.

Yep, I was checking the law regarding air rifles and air guns not too long ago and there's a set of rules about air guns, bb guns and blank firing guns that is soo stupid and just doesn't make sense at all. There's a sh*t vid on YouTube to explain it but it's the same with most legal issues.

Also if they can't argue it in court then where's the money in it? Especially as case law comes before common law. They like sh*t to be vague as they can make more money arguing it in court. 

 

Obviously this man city thing is a completely different kettle of fish but it's just a reminder nothing is black and white when it comes to written rules and laws (even our own country's law!)

 

 

Just in case if curious: (ignore the scooter rubbish...fkn hate them, lol)

https://youtu.be/9HTZT2OdKwE?si=bjmhWJc9hNdqYYng

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

Btw

Does anyone know what's happening about the investigation into the secret payments during the Abramovich era ?

Richard Masters the PL CEO said it was ongoing (back in January I think it was)

Can't seem to find anything about it since then.

No idea...I actually read the verdict should be out before the ATP ruling, or was it before the 115 ruling. Mehhh, can't remember, but hopefully hear something soon.