KetsbaiaIsBald

why now though?

We just need to keep up in the league until Christmas any which way. Botman back and transfer window and we could really kick on. Potentially this will be at the same time the teams in Europe start seeing a few injuries building in

Covid was the perfect proof of that. The game itself was different due to lack of atmosphere, they were like training games.

Maybe. But there are many right wingers and we needed to sell him at the time. At the end of the day he's a kid that had one above average year in a below average European league but shows a lot of promise. I'm sure he will do well but some of the posts on here are like he's the only decent right wing prospect in world football. It frustrating we had to sell him, he's guaranteed to score at the weekend but he's been average at best at Brighton. The way Howe introduces players to the team I'm not convinced he's have had much game time at all here this season. I searched a Brighton forum to see what they think of him so far. These are genuinely the first posts I found: These two were after the Spurs game when he scored: "will hopefully help him a lot" implies a lot about his previous games... This was a bit earlier when rating their new players: Our mistake was not selling him(our hands were tied) it was not signing someone else.

I really hope we sign a quality right winger this winter so this Minteh "mistake" argument can die down.

well that’s a little embarrassing for the premier league.

Wonder if we will be invited this time 😈

to be honest I think the loans interest is just a convenient fuck up by the premier league. You can put in funds via loans or equity through issuing shares. Both of these act the same way with regard to PSR rules. Owners chose loans as it makes getting money out (without the sale of the club) and with less tax cost to the owner. Just like Brighton did. If that was equity they have needed to take a dividend and pay just short of 40% tax on the thirty million. I would imagine if we do anything to the ground that would be funded with an equity injection and that would be irrelevant to any PSR calcs.

That is a really interesting point.

100% agree but being pedantic; having to follow a PL process where a club has a sponsorship deal on the table is probably part of the associated party rules. I guess the associated party rules cover: - telling the premier league there is a new sponsorship deal worth more than 1 million - determining if a deal is associated or not - if it is determining whether it is fair market value If the rules are void potentially there is no need to even submit a deal for ratification. Just announce it.

The more I think about it the more complex the current situation is. You’ve got teams that for multiple years have been running with an advantage due to the premier league allowing knowingly unlawful rules to be voted into place. You’ve now got to put lawful rules in whist trying to keep these as fair as possible. On one side you have teams with loans that need to pass ffp for a closed financial year and the current one. You have teams that have either missed sponsorship deals or have signed multi year sponsorships year ones that maybe could now have been higher. Players have been bought and sold to meet rules what are now unlawful. How Masters is still in his job or at least under more pressure than a fans petition is baffling. They have stated that the unlawful loans rule was added by object(knowingly). Allowing a rule to even be voted on like this is on him.

Yes actually that’s correct. That makes way more sense

Edit - deleted as I was talking shite as I misunderstood the retroactive angle

nobody really knows right now. Man City claim the current associated party rules are void. The premier league seem to think they are not. Man City claim that they and the premier league are going back to the tribunal to clarify some things. I’m presuming the clarification is around the current state of the rules given that parts of them are unlawful. Man City had three large sponsorship deals that were denied because of the associated party rules. I’m guessing if the tribunal does say the current rules are void they will play their hand in one of two ways: 1. Claim that those deals are now off the table and go after the premier league for loss of earnings, maybe a CAT case. Twist the knife 2. announce those deals. I think this would stop option 1 as then they would not be able to claim loss of income. Or maybe they could just claim the amounts loss due to the delay How it affects us will be interesting. We have not had any real help so far from Saudi in terms of inflated deals or transfers. Some claim the Sela deal is below what we could have got with the rules. If Man City do go for option 2 and we do nothing it will make the argument that we are just an investment much stronger. It’s going to be very interesting to see how it plays out. * These are all just my uneducated thoughts based on browsing football forums.

I recon right now there is a race between: 1. Man City going back to the panel to get them to confirm that their ruling means the current rules are void. 2. The premier league trying to get new amended rules that appear to address the unlawful elements Man City are trying to slow down 2 with the letters to the clubs, threats of more league action, etc etc. The Premier league are trying to speed up 2 by saying the rules are fine with the exception of a couple parts that we can solve on a zoom call. If Man City get confirmation the rules are void they will announce their 3 sponsorship deals that were blocked and maybe a couple other clubs will follow suit. If the rules are amended first we'll be stuck in the current limbo of another tribunal and clubs still having to go through a potentially unlawful process.

I wonder what the impact of this is. Maybe it makes it easier to now look for damages. It is interesting that some clubs, like us, put funds into the club by issuing new shares. Our owners have put in additional funds several times by issuing say 1 share for 30 million (I’ve forgotten the name of this transaction). Whilst others put in money through loans. Ashley had a something like a hundred million load the whole time he owned us. There must be benefits to doing it one way or the other. Given Ashley chose loans I presume it’s better for the owner to do this. On selling the club it makes no difference as the load is factored into the price. I guess it makes taking the money out easier. Maybe it also allows shared owners to keep the same ownership percentages with a single owner injecting funds. I wonder if there are other issues what will make it difficult for the clubs that have loans to simple switch approaches.

I think the article was fair. And I completely agree with the stadium announcement being kicked down the road. We've waited all year for the announcement and it was basically "phase 1 is complete, we're now starting phase 2".

I hope they follow through on their threat and try to get an injunction against the premier league.

It really is not that simple when dealing with the amounts that the clubs are borrowing. 200 million for example is nearly getting into the world of syndicate loans. The process to determine the rates is highly complex even if the loan is party to party.

Hopefully the meeting goes something like: - Man City call a vote to retroactively change the rules so loans interest is included in ffp calcs - vote fails - Man City call a vote to remove all ffp rules as without the loans they are unlawful. They remind everyone voting that they will be personally liable if they vote for something that is knowingly unlawful. (I’m seem to recall that early days Staveley wrote a letter to the chairmen of the other clubs reminding them that they would be liable if they voted for rules that broke competition law. At the time I guess they could hide behind their solicitors saying they believe the rules were lawful. This vote would be clear as day that they are knowingly voting for rules that are not lawful)

The interest free loans implications could be interesting. They said the rules are unlawful as they allow internet free loans. So until interest free loans are included the rules as a whole are unlawful. If they include loans now a number of clubs will be in breach. If they said we will introduce the loans rules later they are basically saying that they want to run with rules for a period of time that they know are not lawful. So do they either need to add the loans now or remove the rules until they’re added?

Come on lads keep it going in the second half. That penalty miss can’t be the story of the game. Come on Gordon.

I’m dreading this. We’re at our worst away to mediocre opposition and I have an irrational dislike of this fuckers.

I want to see Tonali in a match like this where he’ll get 10 times the touches.

is that lawyer talk for this bloke is a cunt and speculating?