Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[LFEE]

9 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

I’m on about the CAT hearing that was streamed live and tens of thousands of people tuned in to watch it unfold 

 

It was a car crash for the PL lawyers, I was blown away at how easily their scam was exposed 

 

Few days later the takeover was approved 

 

 

 

Yes remember the one. Wasn’t sure if it was actually part of the CAT case or just prelims of the CAT case. Think that was next in line.

 

Anyway like you say not long after the takeover went through but only because SA paid £1b to cover the piracy issue.

[bobbydazzla]

38 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Yes remember the one. Wasn’t sure if it was actually part of the CAT case or just prelims of the CAT case. Think that was next in line.

 

Anyway like you say not long after the takeover went through but only because SA paid £1b to cover the piracy issue.

It was around a week from the jurisdiction hearing (prelims) taking place, to the takeover being approved

 

A takeover that had been held up by the PL refusing to approve it since April 2020. 18 months of stalling. 

 

At the prelim hearing the PL could see they were about to be exposed for looking after the interests of a cartel of clubs who didn’t want a wealthy NUFC, so the piracy deal got sorted in a couple of days, after 18 months of the PL dicking PIF about and hoping they’d walk away

 

 

Edited October 8 by bobbydazzla

[Keegans Export]

48 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

 

They already sponsor their shirts so it's not a new relationship. Still a hefty chunk of cash mind.

[Ben]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

They already sponsor their shirts so it's not a new relationship. Still a hefty chunk of cash mind.

Just chucking some chicken feed down before they announce the proper deal 

[Gazzaschicken]

Can't wait till I next go to st James and take a piss in a £30m sponsored Saudi urinal 

[NWMag]

Hypothetically could we see PIF/PIF linked companies giving out sponsorship deals elsewhere to raise the ceiling of our own future deals in terms of FMV?

[Vaj]

11 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Hypothetically could we see PIF/PIF linked companies giving out sponsorship deals elsewhere to raise the ceiling of our own future deals in terms of FMV?

Was just thinking this. Can’t really argue that it isn’t market value when they are giving out sponsors to unrelated parties of the same value. 

[dcmk]

12 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Hypothetically could we see PIF/PIF linked companies giving out sponsorship deals elsewhere to raise the ceiling of our own future deals in terms of FMV?

It's certainly possible. Personally I doubt it though and the only reason being is when Saudi were spending huge money on players such like Ruben Nerves and Mitrovic, I thought along the same lines as you, and they were deliberately inflating all the transfer fees so when it came to purchasing our cast offs they could justify it easier.

 

But that never materialised.  Although we sold ASM that summer we certainly didn't get an inflated fee.

[Heron]

9 hours ago, WilliamPS said:

Man City say yes, the PL says no. Be another legal scrap before we know who is right 

That lasts 5 years.

[Stifler]

58 minutes ago, NWMag said:

Hypothetically could we see PIF/PIF linked companies giving out sponsorship deals elsewhere to raise the ceiling of our own future deals in terms of FMV?

Yeah, it certainly helps. If Atletico Madrid can get that for their stadium, then NUFC would argue that we could get similar. Assuming we are not regularly in the Champions League, we would argue that we are in a bigger more globally recognised domestic league, and have a larger capacity, which would balance it out.

 

In all honesty, if PIF could have their time again, I’m sure they would have singed commercial deals with the club under Ashley, with break clauses in it in the event that he never sold the club to them. That way the deals would have been there before the takeover and suspicion, and new rules came along.

[Stifler]

4 hours ago, Ben said:

Simon Jordon has said the regulator won't have a central budget which means it will have hardly any staff, just another useless govenment quango

Look at the regulators we have now.

We have OFGEM who sided with the energy companies and increased fuel prices far above what was required, and is still keeping them high.

 

OFWAT who allow the water companies to pump your shits out to sea, instead of cleaning the water, and letting Thames water be on the verge of bankruptcy.

OFCOM who allow BNPNews to call itself a news channel, but not regulate what they say, whilst the BBC got bollocked that one time they never towed the Tory party line.

 

I full expect an independent football regulator to have a board of Jim Ratcliffe, John Henry, Stan Kroenke, Daniel Levy, and chaired by supercunt Rick Parry who has spent his whole career trying to hand the footballing world to Liverpool.

 

 

Edited October 8 by Stifler

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, Heron said:

That lasts 5 years.

I hope it does as the rules have been found to be unlawful (even on one point if found true, but it's three points according to City). As a result currently those rules in APT have to be null and void until either corrected or removed. This is just the start

[Stottie]

None of the main European Super League clubs, Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and Tottenham have any credibility in talking about the "integrity" of the Premier League. They wanted to reduce it to something they played their reserves in. To something that would not reward any other club with a European place.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Stottie

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

Yeah, it certainly helps. If Atletico Madrid can get that for their stadium, then NUFC would argue that we could get similar. Assuming we are not regularly in the Champions League, we would argue that we are in a bigger more globally recognised domestic league, and have a larger capacity, which would balance it out.

 

In all honesty, if PIF could have their time again, I’m sure they would have singed commercial deals with the club under Ashley, with break clauses in it in the event that he never sold the club to them. That way the deals would have been there before the takeover and suspicion, and new rules came along.

You’d struggle to make an argument that NUFC are of equal stature mind

[Whitley mag]

5 hours ago, et tu brute said:

I hope it does as the rules have been found to be unlawful (even on one point if found true, but it's three points according to City). As a result currently those rules in APT have to be null and void until either corrected or removed. This is just the start

This is the key City are already threatening to hold them to account with more legal action, also the evidence gathered here by NUFC of collective lobbying and anti competitive measures against us is huge.

 

I’m not sure if PIF have the appetite to go after the PL currently, however think we’ll test this period of uncertainty with a new sponsorship deal, lawyers such as De Marco will also be advising club of the strength of evidence revealed.

 

There’s also the long shot of an outside party launching a CAT case against the PL if they can show financial loss due to their anti competitive behaviour, would be sweet if NUFC and MCFC supporters joined forces to do just that and bring the house down completely.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Whitley mag

[TheBrownBottle]

40 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

This is the key City are already threatening to hold them to account with more legal action, also the evidence gathered here by NUFC of collective lobbying and anti competitive measures against us is huge.

 

I’m not sure if PIF have the appetite to go after the PL currently, however think we’ll test this period of uncertainty with a new sponsorship deal, lawyers such as De Marco will also be advising club of the strength of evidence revealed.

 

There’s also the long shot of an outside party launching a CAT case against the PL if they can show financial loss due to their anti competitive behaviour, would be sweet if NUFC and MCFC supporters joined forces to do just that and bring the house down completely.

 

 

 

How would they show loss of income?

[TheBrownBottle]

APT was ruled to be in line with commercial law - it helps maintain competitiveness - the issue is the way in which the rules were put in place.  

[Unbelievable]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

How would they show loss of income?

How hard can it be to show the loss of a sponsorship deal that was (as we now know) unlawfully refused? Hope Man City, us and others affected sue the PL for the missed revenue, and all clubs (which the PL effectively is) needing go foot the legal bill and penalties, then this FMV nonsense would soon stop.

[Unbelievable]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

APT was ruled to be in line with commercial law - it helps maintain competitiveness - the issue is the way in which the rules were put in place.  

And the way the rules were applied…

[et tu brute]

Man City have got the Premier League by the balls as they will just turn to the legal route with anything they deem as not fit. Not be only APT rules which will be challenged either, this is just the start.

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

How hard can it be to show the loss of a sponsorship deal that was (as we now know) unlawfully refused? Hope Man City, us and others affected sue the PL for the missed revenue, and all clubs (which the PL effectively is) needing go foot the legal bill and penalties, then this FMV nonsense would soon stop.

You’d actually have to have proof of a rejection of a sponsorship offer, not simply a supposition.

 

Have we had sponsorships rejected by the PL?

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Man City have got the Premier League by the balls as they will just turn to the legal route with anything they deem as not fit. Not be only APT rules which will be challenged either, this is just the start.

Doesn’t look remotely like that tbf

[et tu brute]

Just now, TheBrownBottle said:

Doesn’t look remotely like that tbf

Oh it does very much so

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Oh it does very much so

APT in line with commercial law as a concept, but they need to amend elements of the existing rules?  It’s hardly blown to pieces.  Man City still look to be in serious bother re the other charges.  The PL as a collective still votes on its own rules - they’ll adjust them in accordance with the ruling, which takes us back to January 2024.  Last I checked, we weren’t exactly knocking overvalued sponsorships out of the park until February.  

[et tu brute]

12 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

APT in line with commercial law as a concept, but they need to amend elements of the existing rules?  It’s hardly blown to pieces.  Man City still look to be in serious bother re the other charges.  The PL as a collective still votes on its own rules - they’ll adjust them in accordance with the ruling, which takes us back to January 2024.  Last I checked, we weren’t exactly knocking overvalued sponsorships out of the park until February.  

You're taking in too much by the Premier League's usual corrupt shite. Man City put it plain and simple yesterday, that what the PL are stating in their statementis far from the actual picture. The PL voted on these rules also, but it didn't stop City taking the legal route and they will again. You're massively off the mark here and that will be shown. City stated in their statement that this applies to the original rules also:

"The Tribunal found that both the original APT rules and the current, (amended) APT Rules violate UK competition law and violate the requirements of procedural fairness".

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by et tu brute