timeEd32

I forgot until reading this that the amendments in February passed with 12 votes for and two abstaining. I believe it's the first time any PL rule change was made with only 12 votes. Looking back it's believed that the clubs who voted against are City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Everton, Forest, and Sheffield United. The abstentions came from Burnley and Palace.

My worry heading into this is that City would win on some technicalities and the PL would respond by simply amending some language and minor process. The shareholder thing is, in my opinion, bigger than a technicality but regardless City’s aggressiveness means this could go anywhere. I’m not sure how anyone could have any measure of confidence about where this ends up (aside from some form of PSR will exist).

The (optimistic) thinking was that we’re waiting on the result of this to make sure we were getting maximum value. Still in limbo, but we should know soon if that’s the case or if we’re just slow.

I want to be mad at who's included but I can't be without knowing if we asked to be one of the six and were rejected. But it's not geographically representative, representative of recently promoted/recent EFL clubs (I know they are also meeting), representative of clubs with ambition and money to spend who can't, or representative of anyone who is outwardly frustrated by any of the Premier League's recent rule changes. Edit: I guess this isn't true in the case of Everton.

It's in the article. It's Liverpool, Everton, West Ham, Palace, Brighton, and Spurs. Says they were chosen as being "representative of the league."

True, but a great sign that he's come in and had an immediate impact. That age group for NUFC is still woefully short on talent and development of talent is priority one for everything below the first team, but establishing a winning culture at all ages is not a bad thing.

"We will be writing separately about this to the Premier League but in the meantime, given the findings in the award, this is the time for careful reflection and consideration by all clubs, and not for a knee-jerk reaction. Such an unwise course would be likely to lead to further legal proceedings with further legal costs. It is critical for member clubs to feel that they can have trust in their regulator." I've read this quote like 10 times. It's wonderful.

City being this aggressive means it’s anyone’s guess how this plays out.

You can imagine the argument though. "If Jeff Bezos bought a club we would have been equally worried about massively inflated Amazon sponsorships." The hardest part of that hearing for the PL lawyer would have been keeping a straight face through the whole thing.

Maybe - or maybe if interest was always part of the calculation than some other rules would have been different. In any case I'm not going to worry about what it might have meant for us in that scenario because, regardless of the rules, if we ever end up in that position again we've failed tremendously.

I know why you're skeptical and I agree it's not opening any floodgates. I also agree we're getting close to no more excuses territory in terms of announcing some more sponsorships. But anything of significance that impacts PL clubs is relevant to us, even if indirectly. And while the shareholder loan stuff isn't directly relevant now we don't know what the knock on effects could be. Maybe there are none other than some billionaires no longer have loans due to them, but it could go a number of different ways. I also think you're downplaying the roll back of the newest rules. The onus being on the clubs was awful with basically no recourse once a ruling was made was awful. We have a little more freedom today than we did a couple weeks ago and that is a win. And I'm very glad we're arguing about the size and scope of the win because an outright PL win on this case would have been incredibly depressing.

Yes, though fines > points deductions. Nothing has been decided in terms of what the new PL rules will be. Non-binding trials of both squad cost ratio and anchoring happening now.

At the very least the door is open for us to bring forward a new sponsor(s) for whatever the biggest things we can combine are (training shirt, ground, + something match day related) and push it to the maximum amount we can reasonably defend. And we can do so without the 'defend this or else' type of fear. It was said in the summer we had a couple things in progress and I'd hope we're ready to move quickly.

"All that I can say is we are living in the most exciting time for sports law." Good thing it's just as exciting as a 25 yard thunderbastard that hits the underside of the bar or Willock's pass to Isak in the 6-1.

The general idea of FMV and it being a necessary component for PSR to function as intended was upheld. So, I don't think we'll be seeing the Aramco Corner Flags at £25m per flag per season. And it's primarily on that basis and a lot of smaller things (like not targeting Gulf clubs) that the PL is claiming victory. However, in the absolute worst case scenario there are now some clubs or owners who are a bit worse off financially due to the shareholder loan change (the least impactful version of this will be if all owners are fine turning those into equity injections, but we'll see if that actually happens), the burden of proof has been rolled back, and clubs can now review and respond to the PL's FMV analysis and ruling. I'm not smart enough to decipher if this actually requires a larger re-write of the rules or if there's a short term window to drive some more advantageous deals through. There's definitely a possibility of knock-on effects here though. It's not #cans, but it's not nothing either.

I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but...

5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from...

The Premier League's General Counsel, after obtaining legal advice, said "the proposals were not without risk and that a challenge was conceivable." Later they obtained legal advice on related party transactions and the recommendation was it has "at least a good prospect of resisting any sustained legal challenge." Speed was the name of the game following our takeover.

No

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2024/10/07/898efab9-9f51-449b-a393-1a0c05b48824/Manchester-City-and-Premier-League-Partial-Final-Award-071024.pdf

We are mentioned 15 times in the full decision. The speed at which things went into motion following the takeover is pretty incredible.

The result is definitely a bit blurry. Both sides seem to be overstating their case in terms of the extent to which they won. FMV rules will still be in place, so that is definitely notable. But the shareholder stuff, where the burden of proof lies, and the ability to respond to the PLs ruling all seem significant.

It's definitely not good news for the clubs with interest free shareholder loans (Everton, Brighton, Arsenal, Chelsea top of the list). The next question will be if those owners are willing to write off the loans.

The Premier League's statement will be "Due to the ruling by the tribunal, Everton Football Club have breached PSR for three straight years and will be deducted 20 points."

I mean, the rules now are also terrible for football unless you want the status quo maintained as much as possible. If the pendulum swings all the way the other way and football is just a competition between the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Real Madrid then that isn't fun either. But I'd be surprised if we're heading there. More than anything this ruling provides pushback against a movement that was only heading in one direction and locking in the elite's incumbent advantage. It gives some hope that the rules can swing back a little the other way and provide some measure of balance. And yes, we stand to benefit.