FloydianMag

1 minute ago, Joelinton7 said:

So kind of a coup by Saudi?

Well the yanks couldn’t ignore them and they’ve always seen golf as one of their major sports…despite the history of the game.

3 minutes ago, Joelinton7 said:

Not au fait with golf but iirc there was a big uproar about Saudi and liv. A bunch of golfers joined LIV and were shunned by the main golfing association. They then turned around and said “hang on LIV is cool after all”. Am I in the right ball park?

 

 

 

Yep and eventually the USPGA had to enter into an agreement to co-exist.

3 minutes ago, Holloway said:

could someone explain what's amazing about that, i'm knocking on a bit

There’s nowt amazing about it and it was a bit tongue in cheek on the Arsenal forum……..but the Gulf states have the potential to do that, buy a sport.

1 minute ago, Joelinton7 said:

Saw dear stan and thought it was a rap

I just think back to what happened to world golf…………just saying

On  Arsenal Mania🤷‍♂️

A little light hearted fantasy...or maybe not...

Dear Stan

Following on from some of our discussions over the last two years about the Super-League (obviously we won’t call it that again), we here at City Group, along with our friends up at Newcastle and Qatari colleagues in Paris have decided to finally bite the bullet and start a break-away organisation, and we’re going global!

As previously discussed, we don’t think it reasonable to expect any business, just like yours, that has invested millions in its club, to have to share profits with other less well managed clubs and with lower-level leagues. I can think of no other business where you must share profit with smaller competitors, and you cannot invest what you want to invest in your own business. Madness if you ask me. Have these people ever run a business?

Anyway, we’d like you to join our merry band of like-minded owners. We’ve already quietly signed-up Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atletico, Bayern, Man Utd (the Glazer boys didn’t sell-up cos they knew this was coming), Juventus obviously, both the Milan clubs too. David Beckham has also thrown his hat in the ring and a few of the other big MSL guys. Some of the Brazilian teams are trying to get a foot in too. We’re confident of getting the top 20 clubs in the world. In fact, interest has been so high that we’re now thinking of limiting numbers. That said, Sp**s have applied, but we’re going to have to take a vote on that one. You know my thoughts on that weasel Levy. Maybe Sp**s will now win something if everyone else leaves 

So, being a businessman, you’ll want to know the benefits if you join. Well, we will all collectively own the broadcast rights to the matches. But you only get paid the income from viewers of your Team. None of this old-hat satellite crap. We’re talking global pay-per-view internet streaming here. Our research predicts Arsenal could bring in 10 million viewers a game globally - minimum. At $5 clear a pop that’s $50m a game straight to you for each of 19 home games. Add in a couple of new cup competitions we’re planning and you’re looking at a £1bn+ a year to you. Obviously, the more successful you are, the more viewers you will attract. So, there’s an incentive to keep investing and improving your team. Also, there’s no relegation, so no risk! What a business model!!

Obvs there will be some shared infrastructure running costs. However, as you know, Little Jeff over at Amazon has been running a PAYG football streaming platform via Prime for a couple of years now. He’s been on board with us from day one and has been doing this to prepare for our launch. It’s 5% of all fees to him, which, whilst expensive, means we have a tested robust platform from day one.

You can still negotiate naming rights and other sponsorship deals yourself and you get to keep it all! All gate fees are yours, but we suggest you reduce prices considerably to keep the fans happy and so that you have a full stadium on match days. People like a day out, and you’ll be more than compensated via the streaming fees.

Let me also address the two elephants in the room. Firstly, each club will be allowed to invest as much or as little as they want in their clubs. At the end of the day each Team can only have a squad of 25. This also makes it easier to be transparent and nobody can be accused of cheating. Literally a level playing field, AND you can run your business how you see fit.

It will of course likely be the end of the Premier League, but as you know, deregulation is the way to free up businesses to grow. Dinosaurs always end up extinct. Also, people accused us of cheating through investing in our business. I’ll say that again, cheating by investing in OUR BUSINESS FFS. However, they were ok with Sepp and Platini helping themselves.

Secondly, I know the fans were up in arms when Juventus mucked up the previous launch, but true Arsenal Fans won’t stop watching Arsenal, and they will get a bigger buzz watching you play Real Madrid than Luton Town. There may be some noise at first, but it will soon die down once the first season starts. We just need to land the message a bit better, so we’ve started a sneaky social media campaign this time, and we’re doing some polling to know when the time is right.

Finally, the Gulf state clubs have put together a little incentive fund. Come join our new Global League and there’s a half a billion dollars as a signing on fee for you!

Stan, unfortunately, this is a one-time offer as we’re unlikely to expand beyond 20 teams. Please don’t miss the boat.

You know it makes sense.

Let’s catch-up at the Euros. Bring Josh, but keep it quiet for now.

All the Best to the family.

Khaldhoon

 Reactions:albakos, Sniper Mik and Riou

Yesterday

48 minutes ago, TBG said:

I didn't want to say anything, but I do have it on good authority that he will miss two, possibly three game at the start of the season. 

That’ll be the 25/26 season knowing our luck with injuries!!

VAR in the Championship next season apparently🤷‍♂️

https://www.sportseconomics.org/sports-economics/the-championship-and-var

1 hour ago, Scoot said:

 

Yes. It's the 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. The rule that was brought in in 2021 just after our takeover, would still be in place according to Douglas. Have the rest of the media missed this or has Douglas got it wrong?

Was the 2021 rule that was brought in about Related Party Transactions and FMV. It has morphed into a more nebulous Associated Party Transaction Rules that give the PL the ability to cast a much wider net. City have assembled a bloody expensive legal team which includes four KC’s all with different areas of expertise to deal with amendments and at the end APT could still be left in place even if they win!

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Suits was class like.  That's where I get 90% of my legal knowledge from 😀

 

 

 

I worked in the CJS for more years than I care to remember and had lots of contact with solicitors and barristers, picked up bits and pieces over the years😅

22 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

Are the emails leaked or stolen? If stolen they might not be admissible as evidence.

1 minute ago, Boey_Jarton said:

The social media reaction to the Man City story is very interesting.

 

Every fan base is opining on the issue from the sole perspective of their club but under the guise that their opinion is driven by altruistic reasons.

 

Man United and Liverpool fans passionately believe that FFP and APT rules are a fair means of ensuring teams only prosper through honest sporting success like they allegedly did. 

 

Newcastle fans passionately believe that FFP and APT is anti competitive.

 

Here lies the problem. Trying to solve the issue of fairness is impossible because their is no common definition of fairness that all clubs will agree on.

 

All clubs (and fans) view fairness though their particular lens. On this basis, I think that the least worst solution is to either 

 

(1) Scrap FFP entirely, or 

 

(2) Introduce rules capping amortisation and wages on a rolling 3/5 year basis such  that a fixed cap equally applies to all clubs. 

 

Both solutions are not perfect, but the world is not perfect.  

 

Altruism doesn’t exist in football, only self interest!

33 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Really interested to see who wins, media are reporting both sides are confident. 

PL were confident at the CAT re our takeover………..

4 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I'm not surprised that the 'FMV / Related Party' nonsense has ended up being challenged - it always struck me as a more egregious and obvious reach of commercial law compared to FFP (though I'll happily stand corrected - the likes of @FloydianMag know their way around that subject better than me).

 

I'm one of those who doesn't want to see an end of financial regulation and governance in football - I wouldn't want to see us to a PSG etc (and I also have my doubts that that would happen without shackles) - but what is in place at the moment isn't to protect football, it is to protect a racket.

I agree with you TBB, I can live with FFP as long as we’re allowed to grow our revenue streams through sponsorship, the APT rules are much more restrictive than RPT rules. APT casts a much wider net that allows the PL to look at any type of sponsorship especially from the Gulf region due to who our owners are and rule if it’s allowable. I doubt the US owned clubs are subject to the same level of scrutiny if their sponsorship originates from US.

It’ll be an interesting few weeks to await the outcome of the hearing that commences this Monday. We won’t be given any information on how the hearing went due to the confidential nature of the hearing, barring leaks of course. I guess we’ll only know the outcome if the APT rules are suddenly removed.

1 minute ago, Terraloon said:

City have already argued  that in the HC and had their  backsides well and truly kicked. I very much doubt that they will pursue past Arbitration 

 

Part of the contract if you like all clubs and the league have is that they will take such disputes to a PL Arbitration Panel. 

 

 

 

There’s always a higher body and a judicial body, that any business can turn to and in the case of competition law it’s CAT

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

The PL left it so vague that they could try and capture every scenario to stop deals happening, so blatant and hopefully illegal.

 

Problem still bugging me though is that this is a private arbitration and not a CAT tribunal, still wouldn’t get my hopes up to much that the Chair isn’t waited heavily on PL’s side.

 

 

 

Arbitration may be the first step, if it can be resolved at that level great. I doubt City would agree that arbitration being legally binding and ultimately it may be a CAT that has to rule legally.

I found this post on Bluemoon that might explain City’s reasons for instigating action.

“The newish rules introduced the concept of “associated” as opposed to “related”.
The definition of related is given by IAS24, but associated definition is the PL’s own. It might be that the PL’s definition is what has sparked this. When I read the PL’s definition, it struck me that it could mean as little as “someone who does business in AbuDhabi.” That would clearly be wrong in principle.
Important not to mix the two up, which The Times does.”

https://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/standards/ias/ias24

Just now, gdm said:

From the outside looking in they seem like an awful club to support even with all their success. 
 

 

I bet fans of other clubs think the same about us without the success.

10 minutes ago, madras said:

Didn't look nor sound like it in the cup final.

You can’t win them all🤷‍♂️

9 minutes ago, timnufc22 said:

 

And you see this as a good thing? Man City have no soul and their success is underpinned by luck of simply landing - completely out the blue - the richest owners. Nothing to do with building their success and building their revenue as a result.

 

 Spending crazy money under our new owners like City did pre FFP holds no appeal to me and I assure you the novelty will wear off.

It hasn’t worn off for city fans……they love winning trophy after trophy.

Just now, simonsays said:

How many of these rules that Man City are now arguing against did they vote for? 

Given its the APT rule that’s being challenged only, none of them.

6 minutes ago, SAK said:

Problem with that UEFA would still have similar rules in place so clubs in UEFA competitions would fall foul of their rules hence it would have to be via getting rid of APT.

UEFA along with FIFA were going to introduce caps on agents fees until a UK Court ruling that it was a restriction of trade and both governing bodies had to backtrack.

2 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

Which let's be honest, is no longer possible. Our best players will eventually get picked off by the superleague cartel without a significant boost to income. Unfortunately I can't see this playing out in our favour anytime soon.

If these rules are seen to be illegal they’ll be removed immediately so it would benefit us in terms of APT sponsorship.

1 minute ago, midds said:

Just read that a couple of times

 

How fucking insane is that little process there? Would any other club be treated like this? 

It’s fucking disgraceful plain and simple.