r0cafella Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: 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). Uefa don’t give out stringer punishments so maybe that’s a factor? Or maybe it’s as a suggested as city are playing politics? Drop the charges or we blow this wide open? edit. Also, Uefa aren’t the ones restricting income, if the PL are knocking back sponsorships this hurts them both domestically as well as in Europe. Lots of food for thought though. Edited May 3 by r0cafella Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, 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 PL has caused the mess by introducing clearly anti competitive rules, now the whole lot could come tumbling down. PL should stick to organising competitions and not involve themselves in clubs commercial activities, some might not be happy with that and a legal challenge will give definitive rulings within Competition Law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 19 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. We haven't needed to do and don't need to do it if somebody else is doing it for us (City). We can sit back and reap the benefits without having to do a thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 2 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Uefa don’t give out stringer punishments so maybe that’s a factor? Or maybe it’s as a suggested as city are playing politics? Drop the charges or we blow this wide open? edit. Also, Uefa aren’t the ones restricting income, if the PL are knocking back sponsorships this hurts them both domestically as well as in Europe. Lots of food for thought though. Aye. But anchoring doesn't restrict incomes either. Just expenditure. Anchoring is genuinely good for the sport. People talk about how great Pep, Klopp are. But the disparity in the league is enormous financially. Their second string are on 2x the wages of Burnley. It's not managerial magic that makes them better still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Just now, Scoot said: We haven't needed to do and don't need to do it if somebody else is doing it for us (City). We can sit back and reap the benefits without having to do a thing. Agreed. But look how PIF have bullied the PGA tour. They don't need to make friends. I'm not suggesting they don't have high ambition for us. But so far - it doesn't look like ultimate success or die. They won't break the rules to win. In all likelihood City have broken rules to win. They will fight in court to win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 1 minute ago, The College Dropout said: Agreed. But look how PIF have bullied the PGA tour. They don't need to make friends. I'm not suggesting they don't have high ambition for us. But so far - it doesn't look like ultimate success or die. They won't break the rules to win. In all likelihood City have broken rules to win. They will fight in court to win. City hasn’t broken the rules until they’re found guilty. You know, due process, they’re entitled to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Agreed. But look how PIF have bullied the PGA tour. They don't need to make friends. I'm not suggesting they don't have high ambition for us. But so far - it doesn't look like ultimate success or die. They won't break the rules to win. In all likelihood City have broken rules to win. They will fight in court to win. But my point still stands. PIF are not going to rub anyone up the wrong way if they can get what they want whilst someone else does the dirty work for them, which it seems is exactly what's happening. We're only 2 and a half years into this and I personally think they're playing an absolute blinder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Aye. But anchoring doesn't restrict incomes either. Just expenditure. Anchoring is genuinely good for the sport. People talk about how great Pep, Klopp are. But the disparity in the league is enormous financially. Their second string are on 2x the wages of Burnley. It's not managerial magic that makes them better still. Didn’t the clubs who voted against anchoring threaten legal action if voted in? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 8 minutes ago, Scoot said: But my point still stands. PIF are not going to rub anyone up the wrong way if they can get what they want whilst someone else does the dirty work for them, which it seems is exactly what's happening. We're only 2 and a half years into this and I personally think they're playing an absolute blinder. That's fair. But my point also stands. It's not succeed by any means. City is succeed by any means. 12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: City hasn’t broken the rules until they’re found guilty. You know, due process, they’re entitled to that. True. But City are not trying to comply overtly and play by the rules. They are refusing to cooperate with the FA in their investigation. It's antagonistic. And... City have probably broken some rules. And are actively using footballing hacks. We've not tried to do any of that. Which I think is an indication of intent. I have no doubt that PIF want us to win but it's not by any means necessary. I'm sure they think other clubs will fight to make it a reality but they will let them take that risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
christ Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Agreed. But look how PIF have bullied the PGA tour. They don't need to make friends. I'm not suggesting they don't have high ambition for us. But so far - it doesn't look like ultimate success or die. They won't break the rules to win. In all likelihood City have broken rules to win. They will fight in court to win. Pretty worthless as a comparison. In golf they were trying to set something up outside the existing structure so they could afford to brute force their way into the conversation and chuck money at the problem. It didn’t matter if they upset the PGA. When they bought us they were joining an existing institution, and they were hardly welcomed with open arms. What happens if PIF turn up and immediately start litigation against the league and its rules? They’ve no powerbase, no relationships, no credibility. They’d immediately be a pariah and the PL would almost certainly have found a problem with that separation between PIF and the Saudi state. City broke the rules when the rules were nothing more than abstract concepts jotted down on the back of a fag packet, and they’re of a stature now where they can afford to kick back. PIF were always going to play the long game, because eventually the league will either shoot itself in the foot (as it appears to have done with the related party stuff) or we’ll reach a point through sensible investment within the confines of the rules where our interests converge with that of the bigger clubs anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 There's another key reason why we haven't (yet) challenged any of this - we would have no chance of winning as it stands. Any club would really need to be able to show a detriment from the rules otherwise you are arguing against a hypothetical. If we took the rules to court as being anti-competitive we'd be putting forward a position where the rules restricted us to being the 4th biggest net spenders over the ownership period, finishing 4th and then getting into the champions league whilst looking competitive for a top 6 finish this year. It's not yet a compelling case. We've also added a Brazilian international, an England Goalkeeper and Right Back to the squad along with breaking our transfer record on Isak and spending big on Tonali. So far its not looking like the regulations have stopped us becoming more competitive (taking the fan blinkers off) Everton won't challenge it now, the points deduction hasn't resulted in any great loss. Forest may if they get relegated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: That's fair. But my point also stands. It's not succeed by any means. City is succeed by any means. True. But City are not trying to comply overtly and play by the rules. They are refusing to cooperate with the FA in their investigation. It's antagonistic. And... City have probably broken some rules. And are actively using footballing hacks. We've not tried to do any of that. Which I think is an indication of intent. I have no doubt that PIF want us to win but it's not by any means necessary. I'm sure they think other clubs will fight to make it a reality but they will let them take that risk. So what? They are delaying, they don’t have to cooperate or hand over documents. Legal hearings are antagonistic by nature and it’s up to the PL to prove City guilty and not the other way round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 8 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: There's another key reason why we haven't (yet) challenged any of this - we would have no chance of winning as it stands. Any club would really need to be able to show a detriment from the rules otherwise you are arguing against a hypothetical. If we took the rules to court as being anti-competitive we'd be putting forward a position where the rules restricted us to being the 4th biggest net spenders over the ownership period, finishing 4th and then getting into the champions league whilst looking competitive for a top 6 finish this year. It's not yet a compelling case. We've also added a Brazilian international, an England Goalkeeper and Right Back to the squad along with breaking our transfer record on Isak and spending big on Tonali. So far its not looking like the regulations have stopped us becoming more competitive (taking the fan blinkers off) Everton won't challenge it now, the points deduction hasn't resulted in any great loss. Forest may if they get relegated Leicester might be the most likely to bring a challenge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 38 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: So what? They are delaying, they don’t have to cooperate or hand over documents. Legal hearings are antagonistic by nature and it’s up to the PL to prove City guilty and not the other way round. Point is City are willing to do everything and anything to win. We are not - seemingly. The legalities of what they've done - I don't care about that much. We won't get a Court-PL or FA Cup Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 36 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: Leicester might be the most likely to bring a challenge. maybe but they may have to wait until they are relegated again. You can bring many examples where big spending clubs go down (us in 2015/16 springs to mind) and where clubs who don’t spend stay up. so the points deduction and spend restriction wouldn’t be enough on their own to win a case - I think anyway ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 27 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Point is City are willing to do everything and anything to win. We are not - seemingly. The legalities of what they've done - I don't care about that much. We won't get a Court-PL or FA Cup But that’s what you do, hearings are adversarial, you use all legal means to fight your corner. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: maybe but they may have to wait until they are relegated again. You can bring many examples where big spending clubs go down (us in 2015/16 springs to mind) and where clubs who don’t spend stay up. so the points deduction and spend restriction wouldn’t be enough on their own to win a case - I think anyway ? I think they'll probably be able to argue that the points deduction they'll be facing and increased threat of relegation results is them suffering loss before that actually happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonas Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 (edited) I still cant really think of it as City cheating Its not like they've bribed officials or score blatant handball goals every month, good old fashioned rule breaking and cheating that's always been and always would be cheating. They've spent a ton of money which is all it was seen as until these aribtrary rules primarily aimed at City themselves were cooked up. Edited May 3 by Jonas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianSwan Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 5 minutes ago, Jonas said: I still cant really think of it as City cheating Its not like they've bribed officials or score blatant handball goals every month, good old fashioned rule breaking and cheating that's always been and always would be cheating. They've spent a ton of money which is all it was seen as until these aribtrary rules primarily aimed at City themselves were cooked up. Agreed. This was allowed for YEARS until they stopped it after getting spooked by City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arknor Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 3 hours ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: It's not yet a compelling case. We've also added a Brazilian international, an England Goalkeeper and Right Back to the squad along with breaking our transfer record on Isak and spending big on Tonali. So far its not looking like the regulations have stopped us becoming more competitive (taking the fan blinkers off) I thought that was more due to not spending in previous years under the old management allowing us to spend some money. and its not something sustainable under current FFP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 19 minutes ago, Jonas said: I still cant really think of it as City cheating Its not like they've bribed officials or score blatant handball goals every month, good old fashioned rule breaking and cheating that's always been and always would be cheating. They've spent a ton of money which is all it was seen as until these aribtrary rules primarily aimed at City themselves were cooked up. They agreed to rules. Pretended to abide by them. And didn't. So they could win trophies and league titles. It's much more cheating than what Everton or Forest have done. Forest holding on to Brennan Johnson for a few extra months is fair. City siphoning wages off the books.... is cheating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 5 hours ago, Jack27 said: imagine the uproar had it been us asking this What would villa get out of this ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 25 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: What would villa get out of this ? If they can get the others to agree to it the FFP limit would be raised and they’d avoid being punished. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghandis Flip-Flop Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Surely it would only be in place going forwards and not be applied retrospectively. So can’t really see what the complaints could be Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 6 hours ago, FloydianMag said: Didn’t the clubs who voted against anchoring threaten legal action if voted in? I'm not sure if that was overt, but the reports were that they certainly said it was anti-competitive. Can you hear the noise of pennies dropping? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now