TheBrownBottle Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 5 minutes ago, et tu brute said: And? One ruling doesn't constitute anything and that's why Man City have challenged the current rules. This one was re contracts. The Webster Ruling was thought to be seismic at the time - it basically ruled that football contracts breached the worker’s freedom of movement rights. Nowt happened, though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Sorry mate, was being sarcastic - apologies The general point stands - this is not an open goal for Man City (and us by proxy). Folks are waiting for a magic bullet. I don’t think this is it. Time will tell mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: I’ve read plenty on here claiming that the PL would get obliterated under commercial law without any substantiation, but I’ve got to cite case law and clauses? I respect that you know your stuff FM, but I’m suggesting that the hanging the PL on commercial law isn’t the shoo-in that many are anticipating. FIFA and the PL attempted to cap agents fees under their ‘rules’ and this happened.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: This one was re contracts. The Webster Ruling was thought to be seismic at the time - it basically ruled that football contracts breached the worker’s freedom of movement rights. Nowt happened, though Yeah I know what the Webster ruling was. This is totally different though as it's a rule brought in to stop two clubs in particular and are totally against competition rulings and are a restraint of trade against a business. We will see what happens as that is the only way. I can't see anything else but a Man City win, which was touched on by the Premier League's mouthpiece in the media and pulled from the table at very late notice at the last meeting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 7 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Yeah I know what the Webster ruling was. This is totally different though as it's a rule brought in to stop two clubs in particular and are totally against competition rulings and are a restraint of trade against a business. We will see what happens as that is the only way. I can't see anything else but a Man City win, which was touched on by the Premier League's mouthpiece in the media and pulled from the table at very late notice at the last meeting. Agreed they are different things - was referring to Webster in terms of the potential unenforceability of players’ contracts Re PL rules - yep, ultimately that’s all we can do Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 Absolute mayhem this will cause Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 To be honest that’s why those organising parties shouldn’t impose that much rules that forced different parties to go the legal tribunal route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikri Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 40 minutes ago, Paully said: Absolute mayhem this will cause Players have had the option to buy out their contracts for a while now, this ruling reads like their previous club can't withhold their registration until they have paid the contract back. It probably won't change a great deal except that top players will get bigger contracts that would cost players more to buy out and they'll get them more often so the timeframe where they're allowed to buy the contracts out is limited. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 7 minutes ago, ikri said: Players have had the option to buy out their contracts for a while now, this ruling reads like their previous club can't withhold their registration until they have paid the contract back. It probably won't change a great deal except that top players will get bigger contracts that would cost players more to buy out and they'll get them more often so the timeframe where they're allowed to buy the contracts out is limited. Isn't that how we ended up with Jonas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 Won't clubs just insert WWE style 'no compete' clauses? I'm sure Chelsea will find a way to get around it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 Here’s a bit more breaking the ruling down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 4 Share Posted October 4 1 hour ago, Zero said: To be honest that’s why those organising parties shouldn’t impose that much rules that forced different parties to go the legal tribunal route. Agreed, Governing bodies should organise competitions and not get involved in clubs or players commercial or financial activities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 19 hours ago, FloydianMag said: Here’s a bit more breaking the ruling down. Guehi for £5.5m in Jan then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skjaere9 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-victory-as-premier-leagues-sponsorship-rules-declared-unlawful-0mp6kb7m0 👀 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Controversial, but this is genuinely terrible for football. It benefits us so we are turning a blind eye. Under Ashley we would be furious with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 City win their case. Didn't realise the point they were making is how interest free shareholder loans weren't fair as they're basically the same as inflated sponsorship deals. Apply commercial rates to existing loans and most teams who have them will be in breach of PSR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, sushimonster85 said: City win their case. Didn't realise the point they were making is how interest free shareholder loans weren't fair as they're basically the same as inflated sponsorship deals. Apply commercial rates to existing loans and most teams who have them will be in breach of PSR. Clever by City and makes sense to me? Who has these loans, I imagine its a tonne of clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Quote Premier League clubs' debt to their owners This table shows shareholder loans as at the end of the 2022-23 season. The vast majority of these can be described as 'soft loans' from a club's own shareholders with a flexible repayment date and are interest-free Everton £451m Brighton £373m Arsenal £259m Chelsea £146m Leicester £132m Bournemouth £115m Liverpool £71m Wolves £65m Brentford £61m The rest are under £50m. We are £0m apparently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Ironic, 3 years to the day following the takeover we may be about to see it's full benefits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 6 minutes ago, TRC said: Controversial, but this is genuinely terrible for football. It benefits us so we are turning a blind eye. Under Ashley we would be furious with this. No, what’s terrible is rules being created mid season on the hoof to reduce the competitiveness of both rival clubs and the league as a whole. we wouldn’t have been furious during Ashley times as we were beaten down and utterly irrelevant. We were rancid space wasters who only existed to the ride the gravy train. in not far totally un regulated spending but let’s at least make rules which are fair and give everyone equal opportunity to succeed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRC Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Have City just created a closed shop between us and them essentially? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 HERE COMES THE MONEY! Well done Man City! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, Ronson333 said: Are we back? 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