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

[Scoot]

If there is a legal challenge on RPT's from Man City, what's the chances rules are relaxed around RPT's before it even sees a courtroom? The Premier league must know its anti-competitive.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Nucasol said:

The whole thing is a bag of spammers. I hope whoever it is wins the legal challenge and blows the whole charade wide open.

I used to think that too, I actually think the worst outcome would be the rules being blown all the way open and the league becoming a two horse arms race between us and city. 
 

it’s a damn shame those selfish cunts decided to close the shop and lock us out. I’d be more than happy with a historic budget being worded out (say whatever city have spent over the years adjusted for inflation with some leeway so they can invest) couldn’t be worked out. 
 

The goal for financial regulations should be to protect clubs from going bust whilst creating a level playing field. Those owners who are willing to foot the bill should be allowed to up to a point. 

[Abacus]

Re legal challenges, the PL are about to be in a whole world of them you'd imagine as everyone fights like cats in a sack. What a mess they've made 

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

If there is a legal challenge on RPT's from Man City, what's the chances rules are relaxed around RPT's before it even sees a courtroom? The Premier league must know its anti-competitive.

Can we not sue them then for loss of earnings? 

[Nucasol]

Can we take a second to appreciate what a complete failure this prick has been. Literally as much use as a soft cock.

 

[Keegans Export]

Just now, Nucasol said:

Can we not sue them then for loss of earnings? 

 

The article suggests the club in question is potentially going to do exactly that

 

Quote

It is also believed that the legal action — which would mean taking the league to arbitration over the APT rules — includes a potential claim by the club for damages.

 

Besides changing/scrapping the rules all together, the FMV/related-party stuff is the biggest hurdle for us.

[r0cafella]

2 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

The article suggests the club in question is potentially going to do exactly that

 

 

Besides changing/scrapping the rules all together, the FMV/related-party stuff is the biggest hurdle for us.

This is really interesting because it actually infers city have had deals either rejected or revalued. In order to sue for damages some loss would have needed to have taken place. 
 

 I wonder if this has impacted us in terms of less sponsors etc. 

[The College Dropout]

18 minutes ago, Scoot said:

If there is a legal challenge on RPT's from Man City, what's the chances rules are relaxed around RPT's before it even sees a courtroom? The Premier league must know its anti-competitive.

Not enough other PL clubs won't vote in favour of it. So if it's going to go, it will go via the courts.

 

That article makes a great point about the multi-club setup. City are loss making but can use clever accounting to shuffle costs to other clubs/businesses.

 

[The College Dropout]

15 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

The article suggests the club in question is potentially going to do exactly that

 

 

Besides changing/scrapping the rules all together, the FMV/related-party stuff is the biggest hurdle for us.

Yes. The anchoring only impacts PL. We want to be in Europe so we need to abide by the 75% revenue limit and we are already close to the limit.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Not enough other PL clubs won't vote in favour of it. So if it's going to go, it will go via the courts.

 

That article makes a great point about the multi-club setup. City are loss making but can use clever accounting to shuffle costs to other clubs/businesses.

 

Absolutely multi club is so crucial and under rated. It’s another reason why I’m surprised we’ve been so slow you can park losses and profits anywhere you choose with it. 

[FloydianMag]

19 minutes ago, Scoot said:

If there is a legal challenge on RPT's from Man City, what's the chances rules are relaxed around RPT's before it even sees a courtroom? The Premier league must know its anti-competitive.

After our takeover at a PL meeting when they voted for FMV they were warned that such rules were illegal by the club. City at the time abstained however clearly they aren’t prepared to any longer as the rule has become more onerous.

[Whitley mag]

38 minutes ago, Abacus said:

The more you look at it, the more sensibly we seem to have played it - playing nice while the rules blow up on their own, and no longer being billy-no-mates in the playground.

Where playing a blinder, complying with the rules, pissing off Levy and the red tops and slowly exerting more influence to the point the big 6 is no more.

 

 

Edited May 3 by Whitley mag

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Absolutely multi club is so crucial and under rated. It’s another reason why I’m surprised we’ve been so slow you can park losses and profits anywhere you choose with it. 

Pure conjecture but I don't think PIF are as invested in us as City's owner's. They'll invest as much as they can with us. But they've not the multi-club thing or done the courtroom thing.

 

City's approach is football domination. They will do anything necessary to win. Cheat. Use hacks. Resist transparency when they get investigated. It's like a Mafia boss. It's win or bust - no in between. Willing to antaganise the footballing authorities and establishment when they have too and take it to court.

 

 

PIF haven't done any of that. Played within the rules and not looked to push back hard. But that has ultimately been smart. We are in a unique position. We align with City on some legal challenges. We align with the many on other legal and footballing challenges. Only clubs we don't have many mutual things in common are the red tops.

 

 

Edited May 3 by The College Dropout

[Whitley mag]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Pure conjecture but I don't think PIF are as invested in us as City's owner's. They'll invest as much as they can with us. But they've not the multi-club thing or done the courtroom thing.

 

City's approach is football domination. They will do anything necessary to win. Cheat. Use hacks. Resist transparency when they get investigated. It's like a Mafia boss. It's win or bust - no in between. Willing to antaganise the footballing authorities and establishment when they have too and take it to court.

 

 

PIF haven't done any of that. Played within the rules and not looked to push back hard. 

Multi club is on the way and being looked at by the club, patience College we won’t be 2nd fiddle to Abu Dhabi forever.

 

 

Edited May 3 by Whitley mag

[r0cafella]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Pure conjecture but I don't think PIF are as invested in us as City's owner's. They'll invest as much as they can with us. But they've not the multi-club thing or done the courtroom thing.

 

City's approach is football domination. They will do anything necessary to win. Cheat. Use hacks. Resist transparency when they get investigated. It's like a Mafia boss. It's win or bust - no in between. Willing to antaganise the footballing authorities and establishment when they have too and take it to court.

 

 

PIF haven't done any of that. Played within the rules and not looked to push back hard. 

Yea, I’m also trying to understand what PIFS intention long term buy and hold does seem to be it. 
 

I think we will have a pretty clear picture when they decide what to do with the stadium, if it’s incremental then I’ll be pretty certain we are just an investment and not a vanity project. 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

Multi club is on the way and being looked at by the club, patience College we won’t be 2nd fiddle to Abu Dhabi forever.

 

 

 

Also multi-club might be on the way out. Not sure if it will hold up legally though.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Pure conjecture but I don't think PIF are as invested in us as City's owner's. They'll invest as much as they can with us. But they've not the multi-club thing or done the courtroom thing.

 

City's approach is football domination. They will do anything necessary to win. Cheat. Use hacks. Resist transparency when they get investigated. It's like a Mafia boss. It's win or bust - no in between. Willing to antaganise the footballing authorities and establishment when they have too and take it to court.

 

 

PIF haven't done any of that. Played within the rules and not looked to push back hard. But that has ultimately been smart. We are in a unique position. We align with City on some legal challenges. We align with the many on other legal and footballing challenges. Only clubs we don't have many mutual things in common are the red tops.

 

 

 

Would love for somebody more intelligent than myself to compare where Citeh were 2.5 years after their takeover v where we are

[r0cafella]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Also multi-club might be on the way out. Not sure if it will hold up legally though.

If city get rid of RPT rules then it’s over for the PL it will kill FFP as they can just park losses at whatever market values they like on clubs who don’t even matter

 

But part of me wonders if city are making threats to horse trade and politic. 

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Pure conjecture but I don't think PIF are as invested in us as City's owner's. They'll invest as much as they can with us. But they've not the multi-club thing or done the courtroom thing.

 

City's approach is football domination. They will do anything necessary to win. Cheat. Use hacks. Resist transparency when they get investigated. It's like a Mafia boss. It's win or bust - no in between. Willing to antaganise the footballing authorities and establishment when they have too and take it to court.

 

 

PIF haven't done any of that. Played within the rules and not looked to push back hard. 

Well City’s owners didn’t jump into multi club ownership in the first 3 years of taking over, that strategy evolved over a longer period of time and these RPT/FMV rules have only been in place since late 2021.

 

Looks like we’ve played a very canny subtle game here.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Yea, I’m also trying to understand what PIFS intention long term buy and hold does seem to be it. 
 

I think we will have a pretty clear picture when they decide what to do with the stadium, if it’s incremental then I’ll be pretty certain we are just an investment and not a vanity project. 

Think ultimately we are a bit of both. Just look at the away kit. How things end up with the footballing rules might determine on which end we are closer too.

 

Us being in the CL with the green kit, Sela on the front,  Noon on the sleeve, that's a vanity thing no matter what. It will only get more and more as time goes on.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Jack27 said:

Would love for somebody more intelligent than myself to compare where Citeh were 2.5 years after their takeover v where we are

You can’t compare because they had no limits on what they could and couldn’t do. Also the league is much more competitive now and revenue gap with the financial restrictions are obscene. We are half of spurs I think people don’t realise how much of a gap that is and how hard it is to bridge. 

[The College Dropout]

4 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

Would love for somebody more intelligent than myself to compare where Citeh were 2.5 years after their takeover v where we are

Different footballing landscape. Can't compare.

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Well City’s owners didn’t jump into multi club ownership in the first 3 years of taking over, that strategy evolved over a longer period of time and these RPT/FMV rules have only been in place since late 2021.

 

Looks like we’ve played a very canny subtle game here.

How quickly did they jump on it after the introduction of FFP? FFP didn't even exist when they bought City iirc.

 

4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

If city get rid of RPT rules then it’s over for the PL it will kill FFP as they can just park losses at whatever market values they like on clubs who don’t even matter

 

But part of me wonders if city are making threats to horse trade and politic. 

Can only park direct cost of the squad at the club (transfer fees, wages). With that anchoring will always be a limiting factor. Also I think City have realised the footballing model they have now is probably best for sustained success. The PSG thing doesn't work so well.

 

 

Edited May 3 by The College Dropout

[r0cafella]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Think ultimately we are a bit of both. Just look at the away kit. How things end up with the footballing rules might determine on which end we are closer too.

 

Us being in the CL with the green kit, Sela on the front,  Noon on the sleeve, that's a vanity thing no matter what. It will only get more and more as time goes on.

Yeah, these are factors why I’m unsure as well. I mean what value do Sela get out of this deal with us? How does sponsorship of us help Sela? Noon is a bit different as they actually exists and selling iirc. 
 

If you remember shortly after the takeover it did seem as if they were intent on raising our profile in MENA I wonder if @McCormick could chime in and let us know if that’s still the case?

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Different footballing landscape. Can't compare.

How quickly did they jump on it after the introduction of FFP? FFP didn't even exist when they bought City iirc.

 

Can only park direct cost of the squad at the club (transfer fees, wages). With that anchoring will always be a limiting factor.

From what I heard anchoring hasn’t passed yet, they will explore it more by consulting directly with the PFA now. 
 

It will also be open to legal challenge. 
 

The league is such a mess, they used to pass rules by consensus they’d get everyone on board and pass rules without issues, now they try to strong arm and it might come back to bite them

[The College Dropout]

Just now, r0cafella said:

From what I heard anchoring hasn’t passed yet, they will explore it more by consulting directly with the PFA now. 
 

It will also be open to legal challenge. 
 

The league is such a mess, they used to pass rules by consensus they’d get everyone on board and pass rules without issues, now they try to strong arm and it might come back to bite them

They don't seem to be threatening a challenge to the UEFA caps and they are more restrictive.

 

And it's less anti-competitive than the UEFA caps IMO. It's preventing clubs from using financial disparities to create monopolies.  There are no legal ways for a Burnley to catchup to Man City as the rules stand. Under anchoring - they could (in the PL).