Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

There seems to be some confusion on this so, essentially the FFP rules as are link how much you can spend to revenue, i.e. how much you bring in be it tickets or sponsorship deals. Man City owners cannot therefore put infinite money in because the revenue will stay the same. So the owner surrepticiously pays a third party to then sponsor the club effectively inflating the revenue and allowing that money passing from the owner, to the sponsor, and then to the club to then be essentially laundered for free use by the club. 

 

It is not banned for sponsors to give the club money, or for owners to give the club money, all this is intended is for spending to be capped at genuine revenue as opposed to fake revenue

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Shock.

So they were quiet happy to sit in a closed league together knowing full well AT LEAST one of them was jamming the FFP.  Now that the Super Best Friends league has been done over, theyve started knifing each other. 

 

Wankers. 

 

Nothing but a bunch of thieves in a cave arguing over the gold. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hardly a conspiracy to think some of the "big six" would push for an investigation into this like. Liverpool and Man United have missed out on league titles, while all of them (maybe Liverpool excluded) have missed out on Champions League qualification at some point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There shouldn’t be any external influence on an investigation so they need to keep their noses out. Not that they won’t have an influence as our protracted takeover showed.

 

 

Edited by SAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a feeling they will punish Man City because they don't want clubs to think they can grow and be a success. I honestly think they would prefer Man United, Arsenal Chelsea or Liverpool to win the league every season.

 

Though I bet Chelsea might be rethinking their summer transfer plans.

 

 

Edited by relámpago blanco

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Northerngimp said:

So they were quiet happy to sit in a closed league together knowing full well AT LEAST one of them was jamming the FFP.  Now that the Super Best Friends league has been done over, theyve started knifing each other. 

 

Wankers. 

 

Nothing but a bunch of thieves in a cave arguing over the gold. 

 

They just want their closed shop. Fuck them. Would love Liverpool to become a shite mid-table club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow reading the emails sent between club directors, they knew what they were doing was against the rules, the bottom one made me laugh Etihad sponsorship of £67m per season only £8m was provided by Etihad the rest was paid by the clubs owner 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

They just want their closed shop. Fuck them. Would love Liverpool to become a shite mid-table club.

We can play a blinder here, we just have to be sensible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, sleazy said:

so rather than be ashamed of cheating they are more concerned with finding out who grassed them up? 

 

Priorities and that

Sadly we live in a world where being a 'grass' is seen as worse as being a criminal. No wonder the world's such a mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours 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. 

There’s nothing in the PL rules about being state-owned.  The issue wasn’t state-ownership; it was the state doing the owning.  They tried to ensure that it was the case NUFC would be state-owned so that they could block the takeover due to the crimes of the KSA in terms of piracy.  The PL rules state that you can fail the O&D test if it can be reasonable shown that you would have been convicted of a crime elsewhere i.e. in a UK court.  The idea is to stop people of dubious character but without conviction becoming directors (MBS is of dubious character but it hardly likely to be convicted)

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...