No idea which way it will go although i think City will have a point on the discrimination part. The fact the league changed the rules (basically enforced to suit the current big clubs interests) just a matter of weeks after the Newcastle takeover is going to be a hard point for the PL to refute.
Plus City's owners can afford much costlier, experienced and skilled lawyers than the PL will risk on potentially years of litigation. This will rattle around for a while and PL will have to settle before City litigates it bankrupt. Few if any of the other foreign owned big budget clubs are going to invite ever closer scrutiny of their finances. The European super league hasn't completely gone away. If that gets a TV deal, City won't need the PL as much as the PL needs City. City's owners won't give a damn for playing in England if there's money to be made elsewhere. The ownership at Newcastle have very different motivations for flinging money at that project but we can be sure that PL has no interest in sportwashing Saudi's image. English football authorities do need to keep abreast of exactly how the Leeds Red Bull financing is reported. If Leeds all of a sudden have the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in football history, coming from their new significant minority shareholder then questions need to be asked. But as we know EFL didn't give a damn about the supposed sponsorship income from a fictitious taxi firm to a stripy Yorkshire team. If UEFA or PL had any real evidence that City have been bending or breaking the rules, they'd be bang to rights long before now. Having one or two teams with vastly superior budgets to the rest can make things uncompetitive but that's always been the case and it ain't "unfair" in any way at all, unless you're 3 years old. Vast budgets aren't guarantees of success. Will there be as much jealous braying about Man City after Pep leaves and his successor/s struggle to emulate his achievements?
I have no time for either party but Manchester City’s action against the Premier League feels completely unmeritorious. The rules are made by the Premier League clubs themselves, it’s the League’s job to enforce them and, since the inception of the Premier League in 1992, it requires 14 clubs to approve any new resolution or rule. It’s surely a matter of contract - a contract to which City is a party - regardless of any fancy arguments around the Competition Act. It feels like a tactical move to try and hamper the Premier League’s preparation for the 115-charge hearing later this year. I suspect that City know the writing is on the wall.
Apparently, the Premier League’s legal fees have quadrupled in the last year from £5 million to £20 million. They have instructed Slaughter & May and a team of barristers, although doubtless Freshfields and the barristers acting on behalf of City have run up a similar sized tab.
At least there is practically no scope for appealing an arbitral award, so the issues in this action should be resolved reasonably swiftly.
The overinflation on some of these commercial figures is comical. Let me share a screen grab from the software platform that is used by some of the largest sponsorship brands and rights holders in the world that we developed and launched in 2022. I created an algorithm that can deliver exceptionally accurate commercial insights and guidance for brands - and I know from speaking to clubs that our data is accurate with regards to sponsorship investment.
Despite having an overall global fanbase that is smaller (Impact Index) and despite generating a lower annual deal value for sponsorship compared to Utd, Liverpool and even Chelsea. And with less overall deals than Utd and Liverpool.... we are expected to believe those revenue figures outlined above.
We even have line by line deals (300 logged deals past and historic). It is not even close to adding up.
Clubs as businesses in competition with each other in the marketplace is one thing, but clubs in competition with each other as footballing entities is a whole other thing. The latter requires rules and regulations to safeguard the integrity of the sporting competition. Otherwise, what’s the point? If they’re found to be in violation of rules designed to safeguard the integrity of the footballing competition, by leveraging their business opportunities beyond the rules, then throw the book at them.
And while you’re at it, introduce more regulations to level the playing field.
Clubs as businesses in competition with each other in the marketplace is one thing, but clubs in competition with each other as footballing entities is a whole other thing. The latter requires rules and regulations to safeguard the integrity of the sporting competition. Otherwise, what’s the point? If they’re found to be in violation of rules designed to safeguard the integrity of the footballing competition, by leveraging their business opportunities beyond the rules, then throw the book at them.
And while you’re at it, introduce more regulations to level the playing field.
City's owners don't want competition - money is everything.
Clubs as businesses in competition with each other in the marketplace is one thing, but clubs in competition with each other as footballing entities is a whole other thing. The latter requires rules and regulations to safeguard the integrity of the sporting competition. Otherwise, what’s the point? If they’re found to be in violation of rules designed to safeguard the integrity of the footballing competition, by leveraging their business opportunities beyond the rules, then throw the book at them.
And while you’re at it, introduce more regulations to level the playing field.
City are actually one of the few clubs that are in favour of an independent regulator.
Clubs as businesses in competition with each other in the marketplace is one thing, but clubs in competition with each other as footballing entities is a whole other thing. The latter requires rules and regulations to safeguard the integrity of the sporting competition. Otherwise, what’s the point? If they’re found to be in violation of rules designed to safeguard the integrity of the footballing competition, by leveraging their business opportunities beyond the rules, then throw the book at them.
And while you’re at it, introduce more regulations to level the playing field.
City are actually one of the few clubs that are in favour of an independent regulator.
But do they actually want a regulator or do they just not like the current system and hope there would be loopholes with a regulator?
Ken Bates who cared so much that he financially mismanaged Chelsea into an almost terminal tailspin and if not for Jesper Gronkjaer would have seen them fall into oblivion? Ken Bates who helped care Leeds down to League One? That Ken Bates?
Comments
This will rattle around for a while and PL will have to settle before City litigates it bankrupt. Few if any of the other foreign owned big budget clubs are going to invite ever closer scrutiny of their finances.
The European super league hasn't completely gone away. If that gets a TV deal, City won't need the PL as much as the PL needs City. City's owners won't give a damn for playing in England if there's money to be made elsewhere.
The ownership at Newcastle have very different motivations for flinging money at that project but we can be sure that PL has no interest in sportwashing Saudi's image.
English football authorities do need to keep abreast of exactly how the Leeds Red Bull financing is reported. If Leeds all of a sudden have the biggest shirt sponsorship deal in football history, coming from their new significant minority shareholder then questions need to be asked. But as we know EFL didn't give a damn about the supposed sponsorship
income from a fictitious taxi firm to a stripy Yorkshire team.
If UEFA or PL had any real evidence that City have been bending or breaking the rules, they'd be bang to rights long before now.
Having one or two teams with vastly superior budgets to the rest can make things uncompetitive but that's always been the case and it ain't "unfair" in any way at all, unless you're 3 years old. Vast budgets aren't guarantees of success. Will there be as much jealous braying about Man City after Pep leaves and his successor/s struggle to emulate his achievements?
Apparently, the Premier League’s legal fees have quadrupled in the last year from £5 million to £20 million. They have instructed Slaughter & May and a team of barristers, although doubtless Freshfields and the barristers acting on behalf of City have run up a similar sized tab.
At least there is practically no scope for appealing an arbitral award, so the issues in this action should be resolved reasonably swiftly.
The overinflation on some of these commercial figures is comical. Let me share a screen grab from the software platform that is used by some of the largest sponsorship brands and rights holders in the world that we developed and launched in 2022. I created an algorithm that can deliver exceptionally accurate commercial insights and guidance for brands - and I know from speaking to clubs that our data is accurate with regards to sponsorship investment.
Despite having an overall global fanbase that is smaller (Impact Index) and despite generating a lower annual deal value for sponsorship compared to Utd, Liverpool and even Chelsea. And with less overall deals than Utd and Liverpool.... we are expected to believe those revenue figures outlined above.
We even have line by line deals (300 logged deals past and historic). It is not even close to adding up.
And while you’re at it, introduce more regulations to level the playing field.
City's owners don't want competition - money is everything.
Our clubs are playthings of US wealth funds and billionaire Arabs who don’t care, says ex-Chelsea owner Ken Bates
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/28329639/ken-bates-chelsea-todd-boehly-abramovich/