TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, lovejoy said: This is likely to change the way PSR is handled moving forward. It’s good news for NUFC, regardless of how it’s spun by the legal experts suddenly popping up all over the internet today. It isn’t likely to change anything based on the ruling - the rules brought in immediately after the takeover remain in place. The PL can still rule that a sponsorship deal isn’t FMV. I’m not seeing how this helps beyond the new rules from the start of the year being thrown out (which would have made things even more difficult) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: Because they still need to amend the rules in the narrow areas where the PL rules were ruled illegal? And by the fact that the words 'unlawful' were used several ties as a result of their rules/processes. The PL have fucked up here no matter which way it is carved up, and the consequences will be big in terms of the league and it's members. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 I don’t think anyone knows at this point how this is going to play out due to the voting rules in the PL and what interpretation of the rules they’ll come up with in response. The only thing that’s clear is that if this had been a CAT case the cartel would now be fucked for collective lobbying and fines would be on the agenda. It’s corrupt as fuck but I’m very relaxed as our future is bright and exciting regardless, they can delay but they won’t stop us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: It isn’t likely to change anything based on the ruling - the rules brought in immediately after the takeover remain in place. The PL can still rule that a sponsorship deal isn’t FMV. I’m not seeing how this helps beyond the new rules from the start of the year being thrown out (which would have made things even more difficult) I think people just heard or read the term "unlawful" and thought the whole APT/FMV thing was being binned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, lovejoy said: And by the fact that the words 'unlawful' were used several ties as a result of their rules/processes. The PL have fucked up here no matter which way it is carved up, and the consequences will be big in terms of the league and it's members. It’s not uncommon for arbitration or adjudication to make rulings like this in business - it doesn’t tend to make much of a difference. Man City aimed at the PL’s head and blew off its little toe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: It isn’t likely to change anything based on the ruling - the rules brought in immediately after the takeover remain in place. The PL can still rule that a sponsorship deal isn’t FMV. I’m not seeing how this helps beyond the new rules from the start of the year being thrown out (which would have made things even more difficult) Do you think Arsenal are going to sit back and accept that they may have breached/may breach PSR once their loan interest is factored in? And do you think we'll just let Brighton sign Minteh from us to stay within the rules while they operate with interest-free loans, which have now been deemed unfair? Of course not. At the very least, the increased headroom that will no doubt be brought in to protect the likes of Arsenal, will benefit us. Edited October 7 by lovejoy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, TheBrownBottle said: It’s not uncommon for arbitration or adjudication to make rulings like this in business - it doesn’t tend to make much of a difference. Man City aimed at the PL’s head and blew off its little toe. The number one sports KC in the country seems to think today is significant. I’m inclined to trust his judgment on this one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OoOGazOoO Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Could someone summarise what has actually happened today please? Bear in mind I don't really keep up with the FFP criteria and stipulations as never had the inclination to 🤣 So a summary would be lovely thanks please! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, madras said: I think people just heard or read the term "unlawful" and thought the whole APT/FMV thing was being binned. Yep, that’s how it looks to me. Wishful (and understandable) thinking. From what I can see, that was the big challenge to FMV and it failed on all but a couple of details. I don’t see any other club likely to mount a serious challenge to it now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, lovejoy said: Do you think Arsenal are going to sit back and accept that they may have breached/may breach PSR once their loan interest is factored in? And do you think we'll just let Brighton sign Minteh from us to stay within the rules while they operate with interest-free loans, which have now been deemed unfair? Of course not. At the very least, the increased headroom will benefit us. Yes, I do. It’s been ruled on. Interest free loans benefit NUFC, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, lovejoy said: Do you think Arsenal are going to sit back and accept that they may have breached/may breach PSR once their loan interest is factored in? And do you think we'll just let Brighton sign Minteh from us to stay within the rules while they operate with interest-free loans, which have now been deemed unfair? Of course not. At the very least, the increased headroom will benefit us. The rules on loa s weren't like that at the time so I'd doubt they've breached anything, it'll be going forward that they won't be able to do it without paying interest or at least that being factored in to their PSR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, lovejoy said: The number one sports KC in the country seems to think today is significant. I’m inclined to trust his judgment on this one. He always does, the man has a pretty open agenda. As ever, let’s wait and see. I’m struggling to see how this makes any real difference to us going forwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 (edited) 3 minutes ago, OoOGazOoO said: Could someone summarise what has actually happened today please? Bear in mind I don't really keep up with the FFP criteria and stipulations as never had the inclination to 🤣 So a summary would be lovely thanks please! Took the dogs for a walk, made a beef stew, done my Father in laws shopping, done some washing, went for a pint with girl 2 after meeti g her off the metro from uni. Edited October 7 by madras Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 2 minutes ago, madras said: The rules on loa s weren't like that at the time so I'd doubt they've breached anything, it'll be going forward that they won't be able to do it without paying interest or at least that being factored in to their PSR. But surely they will going forward? This cant have 0 impact on clubs who now have to pay interest who didn't in the past. That makes no sense whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OoOGazOoO Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, madras said: Took the dogs for a walk, made a beef stew, done my Father in laws shopping, done some washing, went for a pint with girl 2 after meeti g her off the metro. Top man thank you! Glad you got the beef stew in! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 4 minutes ago, OoOGazOoO said: Could someone summarise what has actually happened today please? Bear in mind I don't really keep up with the FFP criteria and stipulations as never had the inclination to 🤣 So a summary would be lovely thanks please! Everyone is a lawyer now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 On 04/10/2024 at 15:53, r0cafella said: I’d expect any ruling to favour either side because the status quo is basically the premier league way so no amendment. = PL won imo. Im sure a more fleshed out story detailing this will leak though. On 04/10/2024 at 15:58, TheBrownBottle said: Yes, although it could be the case that the ruling required limited amendment to the rules, which would not be a 'win' for either side. Ultimately, the clubs are members of the PL and sign up voluntarily - the don't have to play in it. I'd still be mildly surprised if the adjudicators simply told the PL to tear up the rules that the vast majority of their members willingly voted through. It is an incorporated association. @r0cafella this is the result that I was referring to Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, lovejoy said: Everyone is a lawyer now. You know, that’s easy to throw about, but only at those you disagree with … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
High Five o Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 I think the significant part is the transparency and that the burden of proof now is with PL to show a sponsorship deal is not FMV. Giving more transparency make the argument easier for the clubs (us) and its hard for PL to then prove that the deal is not FMV as long as its not fantasy numbers. Shit rule by the way, so subjective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 (edited) 2 minutes ago, lovejoy said: Everyone is a lawyer now. Me especially and I'm right. Edited October 7 by Heron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, TheBrownBottle said: You know, that’s easy to throw about, but only at those you disagree with … Not at all, I don’t particularly agree or disagree with anyone on this, I don't know enough to do so. I’m just guided by the experts, as I find that’s the best approach. And when the most qualified person in the country says it’s significant, I’ll trust that over someone on Twitter or an NUFC forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 Just now, High Five o said: I think the significant part is the transparency and that the burden of proof now is with PL to show a sponsorship deal is not FMV. Giving more transparency make the argument easier for the clubs (us) and its hard for PL to then prove that the deal is not FMV as long as its not fantasy numbers. Shit rule by the way, so subjective. Agreed, though this is what was in place until February of this year - so for anyone wondering what the consequences are, simply think back to January and before that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, Heron said: Me especially and I'm right. 😂 I've not actually read anything from you as yet, i've only gone to the last page or 2. I'll go and have a look at your take now. 👍🏻 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 1 minute ago, High Five o said: I think the significant part is the transparency and that the burden of proof now is with PL to show a sponsorship deal is not FMV. Giving more transparency make the argument easier for the clubs (us) and its hard for PL to then prove that the deal is not FMV as long as its not fantasy numbers. Shit rule by the way, so subjective. Aye. The rule is bollocks really. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it. Something could be worth a fiver to o person but worth 50million to another. So for example, Newcastle is worth £600b which is absolutely fair, I think you'd all agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted October 7 Share Posted October 7 10 minutes ago, lovejoy said: The number one sports KC in the country seems to think today is significant. I’m inclined to trust his judgment on this one. This^ 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