Snak

De indgåede sponsorater berøres ikke af forliget jf. diverse fora, så den del har FA ikke kunnet forhindre

Måske, det vides bare ikke.

Fra The Lawyer

Of course, the question is what value the Etihad deal has actually been approved at. Has it changed from the original value submitted when it was said to not be ´fair market value´? 1/3

The original judgment ruled that Man City should have been given the opportunity to respond to certain parts of the PL’s original FMV calculation. That process had already begun in October last year. Did their response make the difference? 2/3

Or did City lower the value of their deal so it was closer to FMV? As the regulator, it seems unlikely (but perhaps not impossible) that the PL would have waved through the deal if it was not FMV, given the unfairness that would create. Either way, clubs will want to know. 3/3

Det virker umiddelbart som en underlig aftale at indgå forlig om. Det lægger jo op til, at klubberne ikke ved hvor grænsen ligger, og så kan og skal FA/PL potentielt køre 20 sager. At der ikke vil blive kommenteret yderligere er jo fuldstændig basalt ved et forlig, men lad dog sagen kører ud, så der kan faldes dom. Det kan jo så også betyde at næste kan City leger med tallene, går de efter endnu et forlig.

Der står godt nok, at der ikke er sammenhæng mellem denne sag og de 115 andre anklager. Men mon ikke at dette forlig baner vejen for endnu et forlig i den anden sag………….. hvis i acceptere dette nu, så går vi ikke i flæsket på jer i den anden sag. Det lugter af det

Mon dog.