Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - New APT Rules Approved by Premier League


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Northerngimp said:

This is the kind of thing which makes me think PIF are being very wise with NUFC as they navigate the rules, any slight deviation will result in multiple complaints to the league. 

We have the benefit of coming into this later seeing the pitfalls and how to negotiate them. Seeing how far some of these allegations reach back to is a nightmare. I wouldn't be confident we wouldn't find ourselves in breach of something (other than spending money) from the Ashley era.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mattoon said:

 

What were the rules back then? I don't think the PL will do much and will bottle it, think Chelsea should also be given a thoroughly good going over. As has been previously stayed we must of got wind of something so will be ok , other clubs should also be given a going over with their excessive spending also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lish007 said:

 

Myself and Yorkie have chatted about this but no I am not him! 

 

This has just been my username since I was a kid so just pure coincidence and my name is Alisha so.... I get called Lish 


 

To confirm your identity, please answer the following question:

 

What happens if an aircraft’s autopilot is set to ascend indefinitely?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't look like the Premier League are bottling it. They've shown some determination and persistence in getting things to this point.

 

It's the CAS that bothers me. I've never been able to see what the point of that institution is, particularly on an issue like this, where financial and accounting issues are under examination, rather than sporting. If City feel that they have been hard done by, surely there are other legal routes open to them - ones that can handle those kinds of complications.

 

It has struck me before that the CAS, being a rather pointless institution, tend to try to justify their existence by arbitrarily going against the decisions that have been reached by sporting bodies.

 

PS - I stand corrected by the Prophet. The CAS is not a route of appeal in this case. Good news, I say.

 

 

Edited by Cronky

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cronky said:

It doesn't look like the Premier League are bottling it. They've shown some determination and persistence in getting things to this point.

 

It's the CAS that bothers me. I've never been able to see what the point of that institution is, particularly on an issue like this, where financial and accounting issues are under examination, rather than sporting. If City feel that they have been hard done by, surely there are other legal routes open to them - ones that can handle those kinds of complications.

 

It has struck me before that the CAS, being a rather pointless institution, tend to try to justify their existence by arbitrarily going against the decisions that have been reached by sporting bodies.

 

According to reports, CAS aren't an avenue of appeal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cronky said:

It doesn't look like the Premier League are bottling it. They've shown some determination and persistence in getting things to this point.

 

It's the CAS that bothers me. I've never been able to see what the point of that institution is, particularly on an issue like this, where financial and accounting issues are under examination, rather than sporting. If City feel that they have been hard done by, surely there are other legal routes open to them - ones that can handle those kinds of complications.

 

It has struck me before that the CAS, being a rather pointless institution, tend to try to justify their existence by arbitrarily going against the decisions that have been reached by sporting bodies.

 

But if you take the issue of Manchini's (alleged) contract position there is nothing legally wrong with what was in place, it is a question on whether it contravened the rules put in place by a sporting body.

 

Same with sponsorship values, legally they are likely to be sound but whether they fit the PLs requirements is a different kettle of fish.

 

If Chelsea are using a 7 year contract to spread fees and it is found to be a 5 year contract with the option of 2 (based on hitting criteria) then we'll see another legal wrangling on whether the initial contract is 5 or 7.

 

All good fun from the sidelines

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

The way we're doing it now tbh. It's just a shame that the PIF are involved.

 

Getting in Darren Eales, Dan Ashworth, and Peter Silverstone to do what they do is pretty much ideal. You want to see a line from youth to academy to first team, expanded revenue streams, better sponsorship deals, and a combination of academy graduates, stars brought in without breaking the bank, and to grow that way. Brighton or (until Covid) Leicester on a bigger scale basically. 


Those people are only here because PIF are involved, they wouldn't be if they were not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...