Keegans Export Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 16 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: It isn’t the magic bullet that most seem to be assuming it is. ‘Fair market value’ rules for sponsorship will remain in place So what's the benefit of City taking this to arbitration? My understanding was that related-party transactions were already assessed for FMV, so the Saudi's couldn't just stick "PIF" on our training kit and say its a £50m/year deal. The changes made in December 2021 extended that rule to associated parties (worth over £1m). So what's the difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: They were attempting to prevent us from getting increased numbers of sponsors from PIG companies and the wider Gulf area, if City win they can no longer do that. We already can do that; it is the value of the sponsorships that cause the issue. UEFA’s rules re FMV also cause a problem, too - the PL could remove all the shackles and the clubs would still need to abide by UEFA’s rules Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likelylad Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: We already can do that; it is the value of the sponsorships that cause the issue. UEFA’s rules re FMV also cause a problem, too - the PL could remove all the shackles and the clubs would still need to abide by UEFA’s rules Aye but UEFA seem more likely to hammer you with fines and not point deductions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: So what's the benefit of City taking this to arbitration? My understanding was that related-party transactions were already assessed for FMV, so the Saudi's couldn't just stick "PIF" on our training kit and say its a £50m/year deal. The changes made in December 2021 extended that rule to associated parties (worth over £1m). So what's the difference? Related party transactions used to have to be declared by the clubs in their accounts (Man City didn’t declare Etihad, for example). The rule change introduced for us was that they have to be signed off by the PL before agreement is finalised. Man City weren’t even going after this change - they’re going after the change from earlier this year, which changed the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs themselves - so Man City would now have to prove that the deals were ‘FMV’ or face potential sanctions, rather than the PL simply blocking. There’s nothing to suggest that rule book is about to be overturned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 minute ago, Likelylad said: Aye but UEFA seem more likely to hammer you with fines and not point deductions. European bans and transfer sanctions can happen too - but you’re right, points deductions aren’t on the board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 That burden of proof being on the club is a pain though. Like I don't even know if we get the SELA deal through under these rules. I'm not even trying to guess what might change if City are successful though because, in theory, multiple layers could get peeled back. If the PL wins it will be pretty depressing as no one else is either big enough or interested enough to challenge anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 Just now, timeEd32 said: That burden of proof being on the club is a pain though. Like I don't even know if we get the SELA deal through under these rules. I'm not even trying to guess what might change if City are successful though because, in theory, multiple layers could get peeled back. If the PL wins it will be pretty depressing as no one else is either big enough or interested enough to challenge anything. 1,000 companies expressed an interest in becoming our front of shirt sponsor. 800 followed it up with further talks. 100 companies made an offer, that was whittled down to the highest offers, that was whittled down to 3, which were of equal value, SELA was chosen because they wanted to partner with us on various projects, where as the others just wanted to pay money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 There were thumbs up outside London’s International Dispute Resolution Centre last week from the senior clerk of the Blackstone legal chambers whose vastly remunerated KC, Lord Pannick, is leading the club’s case. And yes, Pep Guardiola is right — many clubs are salivating at the thought of City losing. Printed, in black and white, in the 93-page report of City’s last legal hearing, is the list of nine clubs who lodged demands that the club be allowed no stay of execution if convicted: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 minute ago, vic said: There were thumbs up outside London’s International Dispute Resolution Centre last week from the senior clerk of the Blackstone legal chambers whose vastly remunerated KC, Lord Pannick, is leading the club’s case. And yes, Pep Guardiola is right — many clubs are salivating at the thought of City losing. Printed, in black and white, in the 93-page report of City’s last legal hearing, is the list of nine clubs who lodged demands that the club be allowed no stay of execution if convicted: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves. Why the fuck would we sign that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 Exactly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 2 minutes ago, Stifler said: Why the fuck would we sign that? Because we are complying with the PSR and it would be one less club in front of us and if they get hammered they will probably end up challenging the legality of the PSR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 12 minutes ago, vic said: There were thumbs up outside London’s International Dispute Resolution Centre last week from the senior clerk of the Blackstone legal chambers whose vastly remunerated KC, Lord Pannick, is leading the club’s case. And yes, Pep Guardiola is right — many clubs are salivating at the thought of City losing. Printed, in black and white, in the 93-page report of City’s last legal hearing, is the list of nine clubs who lodged demands that the club be allowed no stay of execution if convicted: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves. Burnley…………they’re in the Championship!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Because we are complying with the PSR and it would be one less club in front of us and if they get hammered they will probably end up challenging the legality of the PSR. I hope so… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 They are a guaranteed top 4/6 finisher. Everyone with European aspirations would love to see them blown away with points deductions. It's saying "if they are found guilty then do not be lenient." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 hour ago, Stifler said: Why the fuck would we sign that? Because we’re complying with the rules - and they’ve been accused of some serious breaches? Those running PIF would need to be dumber than a bag of bricks if they bought the club completely unaware of the rules and regs; and the Man City breaches were already public at that point Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 It’s worth thinking about that we didn’t actually lodge any demand for punishment - we could have sat passively and waited for judgment. I’m not at all convinced that PIF are playing 4D chess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 What I don't get it why no movement on a new training ground - ours is way behind. PSR has zero impact on preventing PIF to invest in a new state of the art ground. That alone would have a huge impact on attracting the best players (Current / Future). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 minute ago, duo said: What I don't get it why no movement on a new training ground - ours is way behind. PSR has zero impact on preventing PIF to invest in a new state of the art ground. That alone would have a huge impact on attracting the best players (Current / Future). Man City’s facilities cost £200m. Our tart up of the current facilities would likely be 1%. It is one solution to the question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: Man City’s facilities cost £200m. Our tart up of the current facilities would likely be 1%. It is one solution to the question. A new Training Ground for me is a no brainer if PIF really wanted to show they meant business. Yes they have spent about £300mil on players but I read Newcastle is currently worth £1Billion - so they've already doubled their investment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 Just now, duo said: A new Training Ground for me is a no brainer if PIF really wanted to show they meant business. Yes they have spent about £300mil on players but I read Newcastle is currently worth £1Billion - so they've already doubled their investment. Agreed - and actions speak much louder than words. So far, zilch. We've spent over half a billion on transfers tbf - but that doesn't mean half a billlion has been invested. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 1 minute ago, duo said: What I don't get it why no movement on a new training ground - ours is way behind. PSR has zero impact on preventing PIF to invest in a new state of the art ground. That alone would have a huge impact on attracting the best players (Current / Future). It could be that one of the options they are considering, or the direction they've decided to take, is something like the Etihad campus so there can't be movement on a new training facility until they've finalised what they're doing about the stadium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 Have PIF ever come out and said plans are afoot for a new Training Ground? Or has this just become an expectation of fans? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Agreed - and actions speak much louder than words. So far, zilch. We've spent over half a billion on transfers tbf - but that doesn't mean half a billlion has been invested. Their total investment so far is £305m purchase price and £392m injected via share allocations since, so £697m invested. Although probably technically more than that via associated party sponsorships. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 4 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Their total investment so far is £305m purchase price and £392m injected via share allocations since, so £697m invested. Although probably technically more than that via associated party sponsorships. Think your sums are slightly out. You forgot the £1b to square up the piracy issue allowing them to buy the club Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted September 24 Share Posted September 24 4 minutes ago, LFEE said: Think your sums are slightly out. You forgot the £1b to square up the piracy issue allowing them to buy the club Yeah, that small matter too. Doesn't really make much sense as an investment, even if there were someone actually willing to pay £1bn for us, which I seriously doubt given our PSR constraints. It just doesn't stack up that PIF see us as an investment for profit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now