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

[Jackie Broon]

4 hours ago, Stifler said:

The amendment will be debated in the House of Lords on Wednesday.

I think someone will come back to them and say that it may fall foul of U.K. law in regards to ownership of a company, and could be tested. Others may argue that it is overreach of what the bill intends to do, which is to set aside some basic rules which the football authorities have to adhere too.

I would also argue that it specifically targets 1 club, which is against the spirit of law writing/creation.

 

If the amendment passed, it would have to go back to the House of Commons who would also have the ability to accept, or reject the changes. Again, the issues, both the spirit of them, and legality of them would be debated.

 

Assuming it did pass all of these, I would assume the club would just spin off from PIF, and be put into private equity portfolio, which is how the City group who own the majority of Man City is owned.

 

If it it ends up in an act it would be law, it wouldn't need to comply with existing UK company law.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[Stifler]

It would be at and odds of existing law though.

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, Stifler said:

It would be at and odds of existing law though.

 

Doesn't matter. That's how the government stopped the ESL, they said they would legislate to prevent English clubs from joining, which the PL couldn't do because it would have been unlawful.

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Doesn't matter. That's how the government stopped the ESL, they said they would legislate to prevent English clubs from joining, which the PL couldn't do because it would have been unlawful.

I’m sure in any decisions the government consider for the new IR they’ll always factor in the massive Saudi and Gulf region investment and spending in the UK whether people like it or not.

[PauloGeordio]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

I’m sure in any decisions the government consider for the new IR they’ll always factor in the massive Saudi and Gulf region investment and spending in the UK whether people like it or not.

Most definitley!

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I’m sure in any decisions the government consider for the new IR they’ll always factor in the massive Saudi and Gulf region investment and spending in the UK whether people like it or not.

 

Hopefully, yes.

[Whitley mag]

Would love to see the government tell the Saudi’s they need to sell up, even if it got to the commons it certainly wouldn’t be a free vote and good luck striking any trade deals with Saudi Arabia again, the very place Starmer is heading soon to tout for trade.

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, SAK said:

A bill or amendment as I understand can be introduced in either house but legislation has to be passed by both houses with the Commons having the final say. If the Commons wants a law the Lords can only slow it down for a year but it will pass. 

Yep, the Commons can force the bill via the Parliament Acts of 1911 & 1949.  But the most common outcome is for an amended bill to pass through both chambers - the Lords’ scrutiny function is often listened to (given that actual legal experts sit in the Lords, which isn’t necessarily the case in the Commons).  

[TheBrownBottle]

9 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Would love to see the government tell the Saudi’s they need to sell up, even if it got to the commons it certainly wouldn’t be a free vote and good luck striking any trade deals with Saudi Arabia again, the very place Starmer is heading soon to tout for trade.

Seems unlikely to me that KSA would refuse to buy arms off the UK because of the forced sale of a football club tbh.  

[Whitley mag]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Seems unlikely to me that KSA would refuse to buy arms off the UK because of the forced sale of a football club tbh.  

I’m sure Trump would be willing to sell them what they need, it would have a massive impact on trade relations and investment.

[PauloGeordio]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

I’m sure Trump would be willing to sell them what they need, it would have a massive impact on trade relations and investment.

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, Whitley mag said:

I’m sure Trump would be willing to sell them what they need, it would have a massive impact on trade relations and investment.

Also the French who have a huge armament industry. This pie chart gives you an idea of Saudi/Gulf region spending in arms and what it could mean for the UK.

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I’m sure Trump would be willing to sell them what they need, it would have a massive impact on trade relations and investment.

Can’t imagine they’d be overly happy, but at the same time the UK is a key strategic ally as well as a provider of arms.  You don’t throw that away over a football club. 

[Whitley mag]

5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Can’t imagine they’d be overly happy, but at the same time the UK is a key strategic ally as well as a provider of arms.  You don’t throw that away over a football club. 

I think you’re underestimating how this would look to them, it would be seen as a massive insult and as leaked comms during the takeover showed any government would be nervous about risking trade relations.

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Whitley mag

[SAK]

I think this is a private members bill and therefore not on the government agenda?
 

Realistically if it passes all the stages in the Lords it would need support in the commons from an MP I understand to get the process started in the commons (they'll probably get that). Then time has to be assigned to it for debate.
 

The government already has its hands full with things like the Assisted Dying bill (which has a proper title I can’t be be bothered to look up) and likely not a lot of time to devote to it so it will probably fizzle out.

[Wolfcastle]

Its so disproportionate. They've gone to more effort to prevent a top 7/8 than anything since at least the formation of the Premier League itself even that's debatable. All that would happen is it would make it more difficult for 4 clubs to win the league and Spurs to look more like also-rans but as a trade off you get more big games and two more massive clubs.

That's worth tearing up what's worked for 125years for and chrystalising things as they lay?

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Wolfcastle

[Steve Charlton]

Hedgefund Yanks bought out by other Yanks down Swansea who have no interest in the city or knowledge of the clubs past.
 

The club was ran by locals a decade ago who just won the League cup and qualified for Europe.All the hard work was undone in no time

 

I personally do hate them

[Wolfcastle]

Owners that don't want to invest are nee bother at all.

[Nucasol]

30 minutes ago, Steve Charlton said:

Hedgefund Yanks bought out by other Yanks down Swansea who have no interest in the city or knowledge of the clubs past.
 

The club was ran by locals a decade ago who just won the League cup and qualified for Europe.All the hard work was undone in no time

 

I personally do hate them

They’re parasites who think they can make a profit out of sport. I wish they’d fuck off and stick to their closed leagues in the US.

[Stifler]

So reading up further of it, apparently these amendments have to go to vote. If just 1 Lord or Baroness votes against it, then the amendment gets thrown out.

Our best bet is to get Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay who is a Newcastle fan, to vote against it. He even opened the reading of the bill the day the amendment was proposed with stories of his love of Newcastle United. It is worth noting that he is a Conservative who believes very much in the free market, so he may also be against it in that aspect.

 

I don’t know if there are any other sitting Lords who are Newcastle fans who would vote against it?

[Whitley mag]

2 hours ago, Stifler said:

So reading up further of it, apparently these amendments have to go to vote. If just 1 Lord or Baroness votes against it, then the amendment gets thrown out.

Our best bet is to get Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay who is a Newcastle fan, to vote against it. He even opened the reading of the bill the day the amendment was proposed with stories of his love of Newcastle United. It is worth noting that he is a Conservative who believes very much in the free market, so he may also be against it in that aspect.

 

I don’t know if there are any other sitting Lords who are Newcastle fans who would vote against it?

It won’t get anywhere I wouldn’t even waste your time thinking about it.

 

 

Edited 5 minutes ago by Whitley mag