Agree with the principle of anti-competetive and protecting the top clubs, disagree with the club bringing this case in. The more of this kind of thing they do, the more i think they are worried about losing the 115 charges case.
Read the entire article. In the scheme of the “115 charges “ it means absolutely fuck all and has nothing to do with it. So ignore those comments that it’s “diverting” attention away from the 115 or anything. Completely seperate case and there are a few clubs backing city on this the article mentions 10-12 clubs potentially providing statements/evidence
This is about the rules introduced recently in terms of fair market sponsorships brought into stifle clubs like us and Newcastle from making sponsorship deals
Stefan covers it pretty well here on why city are challenging it
Personally don’t like us going after the PL this should be dealt with behind closed doors but the 115 charges probably meant that city don’t trust any premier league process
Play well spend well I guess
I work in partnership sales. Soliciting and creating these types of sponsor deals for team properties is literally my job.
I’ll say that I agree with the club’s stance.
Fair market value is determined by the market (ie the companies potentially looking to utilize some of their marketing budget in sports). If the price of the partnership (sponsorship) is too high, then the corporate entity won’t pay it.
Finding the agreed upon value between the two parties doing the deal is the definition of fair market value.
Not to mention that every so often, monumental deals come out that entirely reset the market (and the definition of fair market value). This doesn’t just happen in soccer. Look at the SoFi deal for the Chargers/Rams stadiums.
Hell it even happens in non sponsor related fields- Justin Jefferson just reset the receiver market in the NFL with a monster deal.
Giving the other premier league clubs a Vice grip over our partnership revenue despite their obvious interest in seeing us lose makes absolutely no sense.
This ain’t the one. The APT and 2/3rd majority rules are more than fair.
17 comments
wow. how does everyone feel about this?
Are there details somewhere? The link is paywalled.
Unrelated to 115 and seems kinda dumb to me tbh
GIMME THAT KHALDOON GIF
Good, now I don’t have to go look at all the brain dead r/soccer takes.
Break the paywall
https://12ft.io/https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-legal-action-premier-league-hearing-7k6r5glhq
[deleted]
Agree with the principle of anti-competetive and protecting the top clubs, disagree with the club bringing this case in. The more of this kind of thing they do, the more i think they are worried about losing the 115 charges case.
🤨🤏🚬
For those who want to read the whole article
https://archive.ph/glPMX
Kinda miss when I was younger when all I was aware of was the actual football matches happening and none of this shite
Offense is the best defense
As per Stefan, this is unlikely to affect 115 charges which the article talks about and this is about the rules since the Newcastle takeover
https://x.com/slbsn/status/1798001367929459107
Read the entire article. In the scheme of the “115 charges “ it means absolutely fuck all and has nothing to do with it. So ignore those comments that it’s “diverting” attention away from the 115 or anything. Completely seperate case and there are a few clubs backing city on this the article mentions 10-12 clubs potentially providing statements/evidence
This is about the rules introduced recently in terms of fair market sponsorships brought into stifle clubs like us and Newcastle from making sponsorship deals
Stefan covers it pretty well here on why city are challenging it
https://x.com/slbsn/status/1798004211680243943?s=46&t=F_jdbtxb1T7nX_6VJsq9vQ
Personally don’t like us going after the PL this should be dealt with behind closed doors but the 115 charges probably meant that city don’t trust any premier league process
Play well spend well I guess
I work in partnership sales. Soliciting and creating these types of sponsor deals for team properties is literally my job.
I’ll say that I agree with the club’s stance.
Fair market value is determined by the market (ie the companies potentially looking to utilize some of their marketing budget in sports). If the price of the partnership (sponsorship) is too high, then the corporate entity won’t pay it.
Finding the agreed upon value between the two parties doing the deal is the definition of fair market value.
Not to mention that every so often, monumental deals come out that entirely reset the market (and the definition of fair market value). This doesn’t just happen in soccer. Look at the SoFi deal for the Chargers/Rams stadiums.
Hell it even happens in non sponsor related fields- Justin Jefferson just reset the receiver market in the NFL with a monster deal.
Giving the other premier league clubs a Vice grip over our partnership revenue despite their obvious interest in seeing us lose makes absolutely no sense.
This ain’t the one. The APT and 2/3rd majority rules are more than fair.