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

[Heron]

41 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

Well it seems to be that the task of the Premier League is to amend the rules so that they now are lawful in their entirety. That doesn't mean that every rule has to change - only the ones identified by the tribunal. 

 

What City seem to be doing is threatening to prolong this legal battle, and perhaps also to make some sort of compensation claim that covers the duration of the APT rules. Unfortunately I would imagine that other clubs could do the same. The point of the Tribunal was to settle this dispute - City seem determined to keep the pot boiling for their own ends. 

I don't believe it is wrong for Man City to get what they believe they are entitled to through the alleged governing body of the league's ineptitude. It is wrong that the alleged governing body has got themselves in this predicament in the first place.

 

Re. The wider state of football. It's entirely shite that state owned clubs will in effect assert absolute dominance through the magnitude of their financial capability. However, that horse has also bolted and what happened with our takeover was that everyone except Man City and one or two others basically said "Ah no fuck that, they'll blow us out the water".

 

I mean, they would. Of course they would. Who wouldn't? We would. However, we are entirely within our rights to say "why does it stop with us?" Just as Man City are allowed to say the same (and others).

 

The rulings may have underlying best intentions (the PL will claim they do) but in reality, it is being proven that they didn't. They've sought to amend rules and adapt rules to prevent other clubs from blowing apart the cartel. Their ineptitude of creating fair and just practices to keep the competitive nature of the league in line has resulted in creating a closed shop with "happy-go-lucky" clubs filling up the spots behind, content with riding the gravy train and being the "best of the rest". How is that competitive?

 

What needs to happen is that a fair and just method of untangling this mess needs to occur. Which, for me, means a different governing body taking control as all trust is lost in the PL. Once that is complete, new rules need to be put in place to enable the growth of said sporting institutions whereby they're protected for their communities (not businessmen or global empires) and can become or remain competitive without obscene financial input designed to remove competitivity.

 

Many will disagree, I am sure. However, I think the Atheltic Bilbao model adapted worldwide would be a pretty awesome thing. Players from their own region representing their own area or team and the investment happens at grassroot level to ensure the foundations are always in place for children from said region to be able to make the biggest stage.

 

That itself wouldn't be perfect with richer regions or countries having better facilities etc. But it'd be far more organic than the current model.

 

Speaking purely as an NUFC fan in the current state though, we should have the attitude that everyone except maybe half a dozen sides are trying to illegally hold us back, so fuck them. Let's blow them apart.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Heron

[Nucasol]

Just now, gbandit said:

Everyone’s out for themselves, every single club. Some because they want to crush the opposition, some because they don’t want to get crushed. Some are worse than others but it all boils down to everyone wanting to fuck over others for their own gain 

For me it’s the sanctimoniousness and ladder pulling up of the Red Shirts and Spurs that irks me the most. Successful by nature of geography, previous benefactors and history now refusing the chance for anyone else to do that. Throw in their south coast and London bitches like Palace, Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth and West Ham who can charge £100 a ticket and you’ve got half the league’s voting pool in cahoots to keep the status quo.

 

The Red Shirt Cartel clip the wings of those who dare to compete; The Cockney Cuck Clubs put the boot into the promoted teams to protect themselves.

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, mouldy_uk said:

I love how people are praising Man City as the ‘good guys’ 

 

 

Yeah, all that keeps coming to mind in all this is that tagline for Alien vs Predator. Whoever wins, we lose. 

[et tu brute]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

That won't bother Man City one little bit. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

36 minutes ago, Cronky said:

 

Well it seems to be that the task of the Premier League is to amend the rules so that they now are lawful in their entirety. That doesn't mean that every rule has to change - only the ones identified by the tribunal. 

 

What City seem to be doing is threatening to prolong this legal battle, and perhaps also to make some sort of compensation claim that covers the duration of the APT rules. Unfortunately I would imagine that other clubs could do the same. The point of the Tribunal was to settle this dispute - City seem determined to keep the pot boiling for their own ends. 

 

If you break it down

 

PSR - not ruled one, not challenged. Probably fine to have as an overarching rule within a competition

APT - ruled on, in itself not illegal if applied consistently and fairly

Premier League APT - ruled on, illegal due to the different treatment of interest on shareholder loans and linked sponsorship - i.e. the treatment punishes clubs without debt who wish to use sponsorship money to underpin a club against those who would rather use loans to underpin cash losses.

 

The decision on the Premier League APT means the use of APT in the premier leagues PSR has been illegal. Its an easy fix in theory - bring interest into cost calculations - but unwinding the past and the future impact from debt laden clubs makes it a nightmare.

 

PSR will be thrown out in its current guise but will be replaced by something else that limits the overall spending of any one individual club

[Dr.Spaceman]

6 minutes ago, Heron said:

I don't believe it is wrong for Man City to get what they believe they are entitled to through the alleged governing body of the league's ineptitude. It is wrong that the alleged governing body has got themselves in this predicament in the first place.

 

Re. The wider state of football. It's entirely shite that state owned clubs will in effect assert absolute dominance through the magnitude of their financial capability. However, that horse has also bolted and whathl happened with our takeover was that everyone except Man City and one or two others basically said "Ah no fuck that, they'll blow us out the water".

 

I mean, they would. Of course they would. Who wouldn't? We would. However, we are entirely within our rights to say "why does it stop with us?" Just as Man City are allowed to say the same (and others).

 

The rulings may have underlying best intentions (the PL will claim they do) but in reality, it is being proven that they didn't. They've sought to amend rules and adapt rules to prevent other clubs from blowing apart the cartel. Their ineptitude of creating fair and just practices to keep the competitive nature of the league in line has resulted in creating a closed shop with "happy-go-lucky" clubs filling up the spots behind, content with riding the grass train and being the "best of the rest". How is that competitive?

 

What needs to happen is that a fair and just method of untangling this mess needs to occur. Which, for me, means a different governing body taking control as all trust is lost in the PL. Once that is complete, new rules need to be put in place to enable the growth of said sporting institutions whereby they're protected for their communities (not businessmen or global empires) and can become or remain competitive without obscene financial input designed to remove competitivity.

 

Many will disagree, I am sure. However, I think the Atheltic Bilbao model adapted worldwide would be a pretty awesome thing. Players from their own region representing their own area or team and the investment happens at grassroot level to ensure the foundations are always in place for children from said region to be able to make the biggest stage.

 

That itself wouldn't be perfect with richer regions or countries having better facilities etc. But it'd be far more organic than the current model.

 

Speaking purely as an NUFC fan I. The current state though, we should have the attitude that everyone except maybe half a dozen sides are trying to illegally hold us back, so fuck them. Let's blow them apart.

 

Agree with most of what you've wrote but the bit in bold - I would love to see a system whereby players under a certain age, say 21 for example are not allowed to move clubs. Instead when they sign a pro contract at 17 they are locked to that club with a few caveats like no relegation, no administration etc. Also players under the age of 17 should not be allowed to sign for a club outside of their region. We'd be competing with Sunderland and Boro for example. London and the North West would be like the wild west for scouts, if it isn't already. You'd have some absolute superstars at some very mediocre clubs either elevating them or commanding a canny transfer fee. Could even have some sort of draft for those that choose to walk away from their parent club with a system that sets fees to ensure none of the elite kids slip through the net and no club is truly shafted.

[TheBrownBottle]

8 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Agree with most of what you've wrote but the bit in bold - I would love to see a system whereby players under a certain age, say 21 for example are not allowed to move clubs. Instead when they sign a pro contract at 17 they are locked to that club with a few caveats like no relegation, no administration etc. Also players under the age of 17 should not be allowed to sign for a club outside of their region. We'd be competing with Sunderland and Boro for example. London and the North West would be like the wild west for scouts, if it isn't already. You'd have some absolute superstars at some very mediocre clubs either elevating them or commanding a canny transfer fee. Could even have some sort of draft for those that choose to walk away from their parent club with a system that sets fees to ensure none of the elite kids slip through the net and no club is truly shafted.

There are a lot of problems with that - it could prove hugely damaging to young players’ careers and development if they’re trapped at a club with no possibly of getting out.  

[Dr.Spaceman]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There are a lot of problems with that - it could prove hugely damaging to young players’ careers and development if they’re trapped at a club with no possibly of getting out.  

 

11 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Agree with most of what you've wrote but the bit in bold - I would love to see a system whereby players under a certain age, say 21 for example are not allowed to move clubs. Instead when they sign a pro contract at 17 they are locked to that club with a few caveats like no relegation, no administration etc. Also players under the age of 17 should not be allowed to sign for a club outside of their region. We'd be competing with Sunderland and Boro for example. London and the North West would be like the wild west for scouts, if it isn't already. You'd have some absolute superstars at some very mediocre clubs either elevating them or commanding a canny transfer fee. Could even have some sort of draft for those that choose to walk away from their parent club with a system that sets fees to ensure none of the elite kids slip through the net and no club is truly shafted.

 

It's obviously not a perfect system 

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

 

It's obviously not a perfect system 

Yep

 

But I also suspect that the Eastham v NUFC ruling re retain and transfer would knacker it quickly  

[AngelofTheFourth]

My question is when are the premier league going to do anything regarding the huge amount of debt clubs have. Any rule that affects the cartel in a negative way seem to never have a chance of getting through. 

[FloydianMag]

 

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, Cronky said:

City are saying that because the APT rules were found to be illegal on certain grounds, everything has to change, and not just the grounds that were found to be suspect.

That sounds absurd to me. They seem to be threatening further legal action to try and prevent the Premiership from making the particular changes that the tribunal pointed out are needed.

The likes of Martin Samuel seem to hail City's arrival on the scene as a way of opening up competition and liberating the clubs from the tyranny of a cartel. In practice, it's nothing of the sort. They are out to destroy the competition and establish a dominant position. Through all the years of investigation that that have taken place, they have been unco-operative, aggressive and selfish. Jumping on their bandwagon in the hope that somehow we will benefit is to invite further chaos.

 

I don't think this is as absurd as you make it sound. The tribunal found that a) the PL created rules that by their very design/intent are anti-competitive, b) found that the PL did not apply its own rules diligently (stalling on commercial deals and not providing evidence for their decisions) and c) that if sponsorship deals are to be subject to FMV, then so should owner loans have been all this time, meaning more clubs would have fallen foul to PSR and should have been docked points (which wll be of particular interest to those clubs who have been docked points in recent years). Also there is the matter of lost revenue that City can sue for.

 

It's not just a matter of patching up the wording of a few rules to make this go away. There are holes in the hull of their PSR ship now and clubs will seek to benefit from this either by seeing decisions reversed, suing for lost revenue or pushing for the rules as they should have lawfully been to be applied consistently and retrospectively.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Unbelievable

[r0cafella]

If the premier clubs have any sense whatsoever they will realise the jig is up and it’s time to get back to making rules which are agreeable to all members. If they decide to steamroll further rules like they did with these APT more court cases await them. 

[Stal]

3 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I never said nowt would come of it - I said it wasn’t the magic bullet and the rules wouldn’t come crashing down as a result.   And they haven’t, and we’re no closer to getting crazy sponsorship money than we were this time last week.  

 

I know you're talking complete sense but I'd like to spend a day or two contemplating getting golden bootlace sponsorships for forty gagillion pounds per month so we can upgrade the squad. I'll come back down to earth soon, I just wanna dream for a bit

[Cristov]

4 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

I don't think this is as absurd as you make it sound. The tribunal found that a) the PL created rules that by their very design/intent are anti-competitive, b) found that the PL did not apply its own rules diligently (stalling on commercial deals and not providing evidence for their decisions) and c) that if sponsorship deals are to be subject to FMV, then so should owner loans have been all this time, meaning more clubs would have fallen foul to PSR and should have been docked points (which wll be of particular interest to those clubs who have been docked points in recent years). Also there is the matter of lost revenue that City can sue for.

 

It's not just a matter of patching up the wording of a few rules to make this go away. There are holes in the hull of their PSR ship now and clubs will seek to benefit from this either by seeing decisions reversed, suing for lost revenue or pushing for the rules as they should have lawfully been to be applied consistently and retrospectively.

 

 

 

 

Also clubs that have been relegated in seasons where the rule should have been in place, where otherwise they may have not been

[Jackie Broon]

One thing that people seem to be missing is that the arbitration case isn't over yet, it was only a partial decision, the arbitration tribunal still has to hear evidence and make a decision on injunctive relief (the actual impact on the rules), damages and costs. 

 

 

Edited October 9 by Jackie Broon

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

One thing that people seem to be missing is that the arbitration case isn't over yet, it was only a partial decision, the arbitration tribunal still has to hear evidence and make a decision on injunctive relief (the actual impact on the rules), damages and costs. 

 

 

 

Any idea when this will take place?

[Unbelievable]

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

One thing that people seem to be missing is that the arbitration case isn't over yet, it was only a partial decision, the arbitration tribunal still has to hear evidence and make a decision on injunctive relief (the actual impact on the rules), damages and costs. 

 

 

 

Wasn't aware of that. What is the timeline for this. Also, in light of this, seems even more absurd that the PL would want to rush some band aid patches through in the next forthnight.

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Any idea when this will take place?

 

Nope, could be months more.

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

Wasn't aware of that. What is the timeline for this. Also, in light of this, seems even more absurd that the PL would want to rush some band aid patches through in the next forthnight.

 

Exactly, and that's one of the points in Man City's letter to the other clubs.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Agree with most of what you've wrote but the bit in bold - I would love to see a system whereby players under a certain age, say 21 for example are not allowed to move clubs. Instead when they sign a pro contract at 17 they are locked to that club with a few caveats like no relegation, no administration etc. Also players under the age of 17 should not be allowed to sign for a club outside of their region. We'd be competing with Sunderland and Boro for example. London and the North West would be like the wild west for scouts, if it isn't already. You'd have some absolute superstars at some very mediocre clubs either elevating them or commanding a canny transfer fee. Could even have some sort of draft for those that choose to walk away from their parent club with a system that sets fees to ensure none of the elite kids slip through the net and no club is truly shafted.

This is all illegal. 
 

And it would finish elite football in the NE. There’s 8m people in Greater London.  The competition and the culture between the kids there would have Fulham and QPR way ahead of Newcastle. 

 

 

Edited October 9 by The College Dropout

[The College Dropout]

Funny thing is. City are acting like the feds aiming to bleed out the Mafia brick by brick.  
 

Small wins and the cost of legal fees will bring the whole house down. 
 

There won’t be an appetite to amend the rules to count loans at commercial rates by clubs. Wider changes will be needed.  
 

Meanwhile City keep bleeding the PL financially. Through lawyer fees and damages fees. 
 

At some point the PL will end up capitulating to some degree. 

[Wandy]

4 hours 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.

 

Yep. And there is no way they will lose the 115 case now. They will simply nuke the entire league if it doesn't go their way. I love how savage they are being with the PL, it's great to see.

[macphisto]

13 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Funny thing is. City are acting like the feds aiming to bleed out the Mafia brick by brick.  
 

Small wins and the cost of legal fees will bring the whole house down. 
 

There won’t be an appetite to amend the rules to count loans at commercial rates by clubs. Wider changes will be needed.  
 

Meanwhile City keep bleeding the PL financially. Through lawyer fees and damages fees. 
 

At some point the PL will end up capitulating to some degree. 

Will City's legal fees be counted in their FFP calculations??

[Jackie Broon]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Funny thing is. City are acting like the feds aiming to bleed out the Mafia brick by brick.  
 

Small wins and the cost of legal fees will bring the whole house down. 
 

There won’t be an appetite to amend the rules to count loans at commercial rates by clubs. Wider changes will be needed.  
 

Meanwhile City keep bleeding the PL financially. Through lawyer fees and damages fees. 
 

At some point the PL will end up capitulating to some degree. 

 

The ultimate aim is probably to force some kind of settlement of the 115 charges I think. They're in a position now where PSR benefits them, so I don't think they will want to see PSR completely ripped up, just a system that allows them to keep doing what they're doing.