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

[MrRaspberryJam]

1 hour ago, Gaztoon said:

A corrupt organisation trying to punish someone for corruption ...

 

Couldn't make it up ??

 

Yup. I suspect the punishment for Man City's spending of a shit load of cash is to hand over the Premier League a shit load of cash.

[r0cafella]

4 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Interesting couple of emails in this thread 

 

 

admitting to the “crimes” if those emails are real lol

[number37]

Of course we know why they'll be treated differently but Bury and Macclesfield were kicked out the league for, in simple terms, greed and/or financial incompetence on a far, far less of a scale than Manchester City and without the need for fabrication and (alleged) tax shenanigans on a sovereign wealth level. 

 

As far as I know, Bury "just" had shit owners, they didn't buy their way to league titles through financial doping. 

 

The Premier League would require balls the size of a Ukrainian helicopter fighter pilot to implement what they should implement but they won't though. 

[Kid Icarus]

The PIF 'demonstrated' to the PL that there was a separation in ownership between PIF and the Saudi State, despite PIF being owned, managed, and funded by the Saudi State.

 

How on earth are they going do anything to Man City? They've set a precedent for signing off on corruption.

 

 

Edited February 7, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[GWN]

These been relegated yet 

[r0cafella]

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

The PIF 'demonstrated' to the PL that there was a separation in ownership between PIF and the Saudi State, despite PIF being owned, managed, and funded by the Saudi State.

 

How on earth are they going do anything to Man City? They've set a precedent for signing off corruption.

Because no such rule existed to state separation had to be a thing. It was likely a backroom agreement to get around the owners and directors test. 
 

In city’s case of those emails are real they are admitting the sponsorship money came from the owners and not from the actual sponsors. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

16 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Interesting couple of emails in this thread 

 

Looks real bad in isolation but there is a lot of missing context

 

e.g. are these cash advances on sponsorship deals (rather than taking a loan on future income from the bank)

e.g. how were these payments disclosed when all said and done - nothing wrong with taking in shareholder equity, up to the PL how they interpret their treatment

e.g. do the intermediary sponsors actually do anything or are they just shell companies used to distribute cash?

 

This was early on in the City project so I would assume getting cash through the door today was more important than over a 3-5 year sponsorship period, on the premise that Champions League funding would soon kick in to fill the cash gap, probably not quite the smoking gun that it immediately looks to be

[AyeDubbleYoo]

'Funded via' on an email doesn't really mean that much, unless the mechanism for that 'via' is illegal. I guess the PL think it is though, so it doesn't exactly help.

[Kid Icarus]

9 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Because no such rule existed to state separation had to be a thing. It was likely a backroom agreement to get around the owners and directors test. 
 

In city’s case of those emails are real they are admitting the sponsorship money came from the owners and not from the actual sponsors. 

 

If they cited that as the reason we failed the owners test (regardless of whether it's legit - with the real reason being the BEIN piracy issues in SA), then we 'passed it' because it was demonstrated there was a separation, it's very easy for Man City's lawyers to cite that case and say "you had no problem with this, what's the difference?" and for the PL to have very little come back imo. 

[NWMag]

I’m no expert but does it not show that the money City received from sponsors was actually money the sponsors had received from the Abu Dhabi group for that specific purpose? In essence City owners putting money into the club via a third party?

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

If they cited that as the reason we failed the owners test (regardless of whether it's legit - with the real reason being the BEIN piracy issues in SA), then we 'passed it' because it was demonstrated there was a separation, it's very easy for Man City's lawyers to cite that case and say "you had no problem with this, what's the difference?" and for the PL to have very little come back imo. 

I think the PL wouldn’t consider that a defence as it bears no relevance to the charges/breaches. 
 

I understand what you’re saying in spirit but this case isn’t a moral judgement. 

[Kid Icarus]

Just now, r0cafella said:

I think the PL wouldn’t consider that a defence as it bears no relevance to the charges/breaches. 
 

I understand what you’re saying in spirit but this case isn’t a moral judgement. 

 

I'm not saying it's about any moral judgement at all, more that it can fairly easily be cited as justification for their actions, I think it has a huge bearing on it tbh.

 

Regardless of whether PIF inject cash into NUFC directly or through a puppet company, the PL's only stipulation was that there must be a demonstrated separation between PIF and the Saudi state - something that's ridiculous, we all know there's no separation. 

 

So if the PL can be convinced of that, I'd guess that there's a good chance Man City's lawyers can make the case of there being demonstratable separation between Etihad (for example) and UAE

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I'm not saying it's about any moral judgement at all, more that it can fairly easily be cited as justification for their actions, I think it has a huge bearing on it tbh.

 

Regardless of whether PIF inject cash into NUFC directly or through a puppet company, the PL's only stipulation was that there must be a demonstrated separation between PIF and the Saudi state - something that's ridiculous, we all know there's no separation. 

 

So if the PL can be convinced of that, I'd guess that there's a good chance Man City's lawyers can make the case of there being demonstratable separation between Etihad (for example) and UAE

But that’s the issue, documents have been leaked which imply the crown prince gives instruction to the entities that funded city. 
 

And hasn’t this city case been handed over to a third party investigation. 
 

Personally speaking I hope city get off and it’s the end of the nonsense which is FFP, and that isn’t because I like city or anything of such nature but FFP is the wolf in sheep’s clothing which makes challenging the status quo extremely difficult. 

[Skeletor]

Honestly feel that football is beyond saving in this regard. In all the top leagues there are the top teams who hold all the influence over those who are supposed to actually be in charge and that can never be removed.

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

But that’s the issue, documents have been leaked which imply the crown prince gives instruction to the entities that funded city. 
 

And hasn’t this city case been handed over to a third party investigation. 
 

Personally speaking I hope city get off and it’s the end of the nonsense which is FFP, and that isn’t because I like city or anything of such nature but FFP is the wolf in sheep’s clothing which makes challenging the status quo extremely difficult. 

 

Maybe so, but then you don't even need a leaked document to show who funds and controls PIF and who owns Saudia - one of our recent sponsors. So I'd imagine Man City's lawyers could ask what the difference is and easily snake their way out of the paper trail. 

[TheHoob]

Probably splitting hairs but I didn't think we demonstrated that PIF was separate from the state, only gave legally binding assurances (whatever that means) that the state would not control NUFC? 

[Cronky]

57 minutes ago, number37 said:

Of course we know why they'll be treated differently but Bury and Macclesfield were kicked out the league for, in simple terms, greed and/or financial incompetence on a far, far less of a scale than Manchester City and without the need for fabrication and (alleged) tax shenanigans on a sovereign wealth level. 

 

As far as I know, Bury "just" had shit owners, they didn't buy their way to league titles through financial doping. 

 

The Premier League would require balls the size of a Ukrainian helicopter fighter pilot to implement what they should implement but they won't though. 

 

I'd agree that, if all this is true, then a punishment that is proportionate to previous decisions would be relegation - perhaps down two or more divisions.

 

When Rangers got done, they had to start from the lowest tier.

[TheHoob]

10 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

Probably splitting hairs but I didn't think we demonstrated that PIF was separate from the state, only gave legally binding assurances (whatever that means) that the state would not control NUFC? 

 

The Premier League has now received legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control Newcastle United Football Club.

[nufcnick]

28 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Maybe so, but then you don't even need a leaked document to show who funds and controls PIF and who owns Saudia - one of our recent sponsors. So I'd imagine Man City's lawyers could ask what the difference is and easily snake their way out of the paper trail. 

You can have related party sponsors, they are adjusted to fair value, mancity tried to get round this by cheating 

[Tsunami]

We’re going to have to be absolutely squeaky clean with our dealings. At some point in the future they’ll be looking at us and no doubt the PL will be continuously privately lobbied to do so until it happens. When it happens and assuming we’re clean we need to politely ask that those lobbying be looked at. Other clubs have years on us in terms of making mistakes and getting greedy.

[Gaztoon]

Whats different apart from scale from Ashley using sports direct as sponsor and setting the size of the sponsorship fee and City owners using a company to do the same ? 

 

 

 

 

[Coffee_Johnny]

1 minute ago, Tsunami said:

We’re going to have to be absolutely squeaky clean with our dealings. At some point in the future they’ll be looking at us and no doubt the PL will be continuously privately lobbied to do so until it happens. When it happens and assuming we’re clean we need to politely ask that those lobbying be looked at. Other clubs have years on us in terms of making mistakes and getting greedy.

Timely shot across the bows for us really. Wouldn’t have been surprised to see somewhat inflated sponsorship deals by subsidiary, or otherwise interested, companies in the summer. 

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

But that’s the issue, documents have been leaked which imply the crown prince gives instruction to the entities that funded city. 
 

And hasn’t this city case been handed over to a third party investigation. 
 

Personally speaking I hope city get off and it’s the end of the nonsense which is FFP, and that isn’t because I like city or anything of such nature but FFP is the wolf in sheep’s clothing which makes challenging the status quo extremely difficult. 

If FFP is to be legally challenged it’s likely to be sooner rather than later, possibly by City. They know that if the financial regs that are in place is ruled to be illegal it would shake the PL and UEFA to their core. It would lead to a free for all where only the mega wealthy would really rule the roost.

[toontownman]

47 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

We’re going to have to be absolutely squeaky clean with our dealings. At some point in the future they’ll be looking at us and no doubt the PL will be continuously privately lobbied to do so until it happens. When it happens and assuming we’re clean we need to politely ask that those lobbying be looked at. Other clubs have years on us in terms of making mistakes and getting greedy.

Far less worried about PiF than I am about what ashely and his crooks might have done during his reign.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

50 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

Whats different apart from scale from Ashley using sports direct as sponsor and setting the size of the sponsorship fee and City owners using a company to do the same ? 

Newcastle didn’t benefit from that