TheBrownBottle

Great stuff, still unbelievable the state of Bordeaux mind - though at least they still exist

100%, and Howe knows the players and their capabilities so I completely trust his judgement re not playing him. But it just seems like such an odd signing if the lad isn’t even third choice - they might as well have sent him out on loan until January if that’s the case

I would ask what the point of a back up striker is when he’s not selected as when your first two centre forwards are out? He’s not a back up if that’s the case

I’m one of those who thinks that you fix the present until you’re in a position to fully forward plan. I hope Osula comes good, but the lad did play a lot of PL football last season so he shouldn’t need to be eased in gradually over a few seasons - though tbf he looked miles away from PL quality last year. It’s still a head-scratching transfer for me.

While all the stadium costs are confidential, it isn’t thought to have cost much less than a regular build of similar size. There is zero chance of PIF pouring hundreds of millions into a ground which would be used for a season, or two at most. Spending £250m and bringing in £70m isn’t even on the table. It is move or a small extension to SJP (if that is possible).

The cup QF in 1995 still stings tbh. I was convinced we’d win it that year.

Agreed they are different things - was referring to Webster in terms of the potential unenforceability of players’ contracts Re PL rules - yep, ultimately that’s all we can do

This one was re contracts. The Webster Ruling was thought to be seismic at the time - it basically ruled that football contracts breached the worker’s freedom of movement rights. Nowt happened, though

Sorry mate, was being sarcastic - apologies The general point stands - this is not an open goal for Man City (and us by proxy). Folks are waiting for a magic bullet. I don’t think this is it.

I’ve read plenty on here claiming that the PL would get obliterated under commercial law without any substantiation, but I’ve got to cite case law and clauses? I respect that you know your stuff FM, but I’m suggesting that the hanging the PL on commercial law isn’t the shoo-in that many are anticipating.

Then Man City won, which is why we now have Aramco sponsoring us for £100m a season. Makes sense.

The Webster Ruling already challenged it. Webster won.

There are exemption orders re football. Feel free to google.

Punitive clauses are not enforceable - this is a standard of English law. Whether or not the contract terms are deemed punitive - that’s never been challenged.

That’s not the case though - there are exemptions under English law for specific areas including sport

It wasn’t the rules from 2021, it was the rules from Feb 2024 that they took issue with

My understanding was that Man City were going after the changes made to the rules back at the start of the year, which changed where the burden of proof lay re FMV of sponsorships. It wasn't to throw out FMV generally.

There's release clauses in my industry - I have had similar clauses in most of my contracts re leaving etc. Edit: also for training paid for by the employer, etc. But these are reasonable costs incurred and not out of sight for a well-paid professional. The issue is not whether or not the such clauses exist elsewhere, but whether or not they would stack up as fair and reasonable in an employment court - and I doubt that a person locked into an eight year contract which would take a nine-figure sum to buy out would be held to it by law. It is a basic principle of English law that punitive clauses in contracts are unenforcable.

Yep, and that would increase the chances of a leak

Yes, although it could be the case that the ruling required limited amendment to the rules, which would not be a 'win' for either side. Ultimately, the clubs are members of the PL and sign up voluntarily - the don't have to play in it. I'd still be mildly surprised if the adjudicators simply told the PL to tear up the rules that the vast majority of their members willingly voted through. It is an incorporated association.

There's lots and lots of commentary re commercial law etc, but football generally doesn't stack up vs commercial or employment law. Where else can you be held to a multiple year contract with a buyout beyond the means of any individual employed? Football's player registration system isn't in line with general employment law. But it still exists (and has been pushed back in the past, via the Eastham and Bosman cases).

Definitely - I commented earlier in the thread that there was a lot of 2 + 2 = [insert number here] going on from the football press on the day the news 'leaked', followed by fevered backpedaling. My suspicion is that if it was seismic it likely would have leaked out - my guess would be that the ruling isn't a 'win' for either party

I thought that there had been. The issue is that it is confidential - the first time we'll get anything confirmed is via any changes to the PL rulebook. So far, no changes.

Yep. Like asking a tenant if someone has asked the landlord about buying the house. Why would they know?

100% - I'd say he's strawmanning, but he's not that smart. He takes a bunch of assumptions and guesses and makes confident statements - just look at his replies to comments under that video. He doesn't understand construction or council planning whatsoever. Why would NUFC approach Urban Green - and even if they did, why would the club not issue NDAs? He thinks that if Eddie Leezers comes knocking, they'll have to give up the facts. The man's ego is unreal.