Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability - Some Associated Party Transaction Rules Found to be Unlawful in Man City vs. Premier League Case

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, lovejoy said:

 

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.

 

 

Which is fair enough, and it has significance, because the PL can’t simply push the burden of proof across to the clubs, which would have been a nightmare for some clubs.  But FMV and APT is still in place. 

[Heron]

Just now, lovejoy said:

😂

 

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. 👍🏻

 

It's just shite and me waffling mate. Don't worry. I have like, 30% understanding.

[lovejoy]

Just now, Heron said:

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.

 

Aye, you'll do for me, i've seen enough already.

 

Heron is right 👍🏻

[madras]

1 minute ago, lovejoy said:

 

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.

 

 

Depends what he means by significant? He may think it's significant about the loans and that tge burden of proof over APT is now with the PL and any added transparency.

[Heron]

1 minute ago, lovejoy said:

 

Aye, you'll do for me, i've seen enough already.

 

Heron is right 👍🏻

[bobbydazzla]

So 11 x PL clubs propose a new rule that says any club that wears black n white stripes must give a 5 goal head start in every PL game they play, and the PL put it to vote and it passes by majority

 

Therefore NUFC just have to accept that new rule, because it’s the PL’s competition and they and their members decide the rules of the competition?

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by bobbydazzla

[lovejoy]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Which is fair enough, and it has significance, because the PL can’t simply push the burden of proof across to the clubs, which would have been a nightmare for some clubs.  But FMV and APT is still in place. 

 

I don't think (from my limited understanding) that'll ever change, nor do i think anyone would really expect it to do so overall.

 

But the mechanics will, and I cannot see how that doesn't benefit us.

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by lovejoy

[lovejoy]

1 minute ago, madras said:

Depends what he means by significant? He may think it's significant about the loans and that tge burden of proof over APT is now with the PL and any added transparency.

 

 

Significant about the loans will do nicely tbh.

 

As will transparency.

 

Take both of those 👍🏻

 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

We’ll find out quickly enough as the PL rules will have to be adjusted ASAP.  We’ll also now get a quick resolution to whether or not the club has been waiting to announce loads of sponsors because they were waiting on the Man City case, or whether they have simply been very slow in getting deals in.

 

I know where my money is on that front. 

[gdm]

 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

 

I don't think (from my limited understanding) that'll ever change, nor do i think anyone would really expect it to do so overall.

 

But the mechanics will, and I cannot see how that doesn't benefit us.

 

 

 

The mechanics are back to how they were after the takeover and before Feb this year, along with the shareholder loan issue thrown in (which would make it potentially harder for us to sell players).  I don’t remember the rules particularly benefitting us as they previously existed. 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

The interest free loans implications could be interesting. They said the rules are unlawful as they allow internet free loans. So until interest free loans are included the rules as a whole are unlawful.  If they include loans now a number of clubs will be in breach.  If they said we will introduce the loans rules later they are basically saying that they want to run with rules for a period of time that they know are not lawful.  So do they either need to add the loans now or remove the rules until they’re added?

[lovejoy]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We’ll find out quickly enough as the PL rules will have to be adjusted ASAP.  We’ll also now get a quick resolution to whether or not the club has been waiting to announce loads of sponsors because they were waiting on the Man City case, or whether they have simply been very slow in getting deals in.

 

I know where my money is on that front. 

 

 

Aye, me too sadly.

 

[timeEd32]

At the very least the door is open for us to bring forward a new sponsor(s) for whatever the biggest things we can combine are (training shirt, ground, + something match day related) and push it to the maximum amount we can reasonably defend. And we can do so without the 'defend this or else' type of fear. It was said in the summer we had a couple things in progress and I'd hope we're ready to move quickly.

[lovejoy]

Just now, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

The interest free loans implications could be interesting. They said the rules are unlawful as they allow internet free loans. So until interest free loans are included the rules as a whole are unlawful.  If they include loans now a number of clubs will be in breach.  If they said we will introduce the loans rules later they are basically saying that they want to run with rules for a period of time that they know are not lawful.  So do they either need to add the loans now or remove the rules until they’re added?

 

This is my reading of it as well.

 

The simplest fix would be to raise the headroom for losses.

 

Which would be a huge benefit for us.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, lovejoy said:

 

This is my reading of it as well.

 

The simplest fix would be to raise the headroom for losses.

 

Which would be a huge benefit for us.

Agreed, but the UEFA rules snooker that  

[lovejoy]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The mechanics are back to how they were after the takeover and before Feb this year, along with the shareholder loan issue thrown in (which would make it potentially harder for us to sell players).  I don’t remember the rules particularly benefitting us as they previously existed. 

 

 

But surely, the only way to keep clubs compliant is to raise the loss headroom, right?

 

How could that not benefit NUFC?

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

[lovejoy]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed, but the UEFA rules snooker that  

 

Last time I read up on those they had no teeth and nobody really gave a fuck about them.

 

Has that changed? (Genuine question).

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by lovejoy

[Heron]

1 minute ago, lovejoy said:

 

 

But surely, the only way to keep clubs compliant is to raise the loss headroom, right?

 

How could that not benefit NUFC?

Or offer a time to get their collective house in order, I guess, whilst the rules are rewritten. That in itself would come under fire though by those such as ourselves and City, you'd imagine.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, lovejoy said:

 

 

But surely, the only way to keep clubs compliant is to raise the loss headroom, right?

 

How could that not benefit NUFC?

Raising the headroom isn’t feasible as clubs are now complying with UEFA rules re outgoings as a % of turnover, and this includes reduced acceptable losses (totalling €90m max over three years)

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, lovejoy said:

 

Last time I read up on those they had no teeth and nobody really gave a fuck about them.

 

Has that changed? (Genuine question).

 

 

 

Yes, the PL implements them from this season - though this year at a reduced % before full compliance next season 

[madras]

8 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

 

 

Significant about the loans will do nicely tbh.

 

As will transparency.

 

Take both of those 👍🏻

 

 

Yeah but it's not the repeal of APT/FMV like some seem to think 

[timeEd32]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Agreed, but the UEFA rules snooker that  

 

Yes, though fines > points deductions. 

 

6 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes, the PL implements them from this season - though this year at a reduced % before full compliance next season 

 

Nothing has been decided in terms of what the new PL rules will be. Non-binding trials of both squad cost ratio and anchoring happening now.

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by timeEd32

[RS]

Biggest thing for me is admitting they broke competition law by rushing through the rule specifically to hinder NUFC’s progress  to appease their favourite clubs. 
 

We should sue the bent bastards for loss of trade/earnings.