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

[TheBrownBottle]

Something worth remembering is that Man City’s challenge was only re the amended rules from Feb this year 

[Matt1892]

35 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It definitely hits those clubs, and possibly hard.  Which is a massive change.

 

But in terms of NUFC, little has changed. 

If it hits those clubs with financial constraints then it will be a benefit to us, in the same way that FFP benefits other clubs by stopping unlimited spending.

 

it will be up to us as a club to take advantage of that.

 

 

 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

Hopefully the meeting goes something like:

 

- Man City call a vote to retroactively change the rules so loans interest is included in ffp calcs

- vote fails 

- Man City call a vote to remove all ffp rules as without the loans they are unlawful. They remind everyone voting that they will be personally liable if they vote for something that is knowingly unlawful.  
 

(I’m seem to recall that early days Staveley wrote a letter to the chairmen of the other clubs reminding them that they would be liable if they voted for rules that broke competition law. At the time I guess they could hide behind their solicitors saying they believe the rules were lawful.  This vote would be clear as day that they are knowingly voting for rules that are not lawful)

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Absolutely preposterous. If that were the case they would have stopped Man U and the likes years ago. It was all fine with American owners

The American owners didn’t effectively own most of the wealth and companies in the US, though.  It would have been the likes of Leicester with their King Power deals which would have been targeted too - the ‘racist’ element never made any sense as an attack line. 

[mighty__mag]

 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Matt1892 said:

If it hits those clubs with financial constraints then it will be a benefit to us, in the same way that FFP benefits other clubs by stopping unlimited spending.

 

it will be up to us as a club to take advantage of that.

 

 

 

Swings and roundabouts - it potentially reduces buyers for your players in the market, too.

 

I’ve fuck all sympathy for the likes of Brighton, mind.  They’ve had huge sums poured in and the media goes on as if a

miracle has occurred. 

[Colos Short and Curlies]

28 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Which wouldn’t leave us any better off, as football escalation doesn’t follow the wider economy.  You’d need to produce football-related indices to do that I suspect - not sure how feasible that would be

 

You could use average wage or I'm sure there is a transfer fee inflation calculation out there somewhere to use as a base.

 

The basic point is that the sponsorships City/Chelsea etc had in place before they became established were higher than we are allowed compared to the rest of the league at that point and that should be the benchmark

[timeEd32]

9 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Absolutely preposterous. If that were the case they would have stopped Man U and the likes years ago. It was all fine with American owners

 

You can imagine the argument though. "If Jeff Bezos bought a club we would have been equally worried about massively inflated Amazon sponsorships." The hardest part of that hearing for the PL lawyer would have been keeping a straight face through the whole thing.

[Teslact]

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yeah, some of those charges do go back to Etihad sponsorship as it relates to how much actually came from the airline and how much came directly from the ownership - and the emails involved in the case suggests that Man City were deliberately pretending that it was a sponsorship deal (which it looks like it was direct investment), which would of course mean that the actual sponsor amount was significantly less than that reported.

 

Apart from the deceit, this kind of implies that everyone knew direct investment - ie wrapped up in owner interest free loans - wasn't kosher either. Otherwise why not just do that?

[madras]

12 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

 

Absolutely preposterous. If that were the case they would have stopped Man U and the likes years ago. It was all fine with American owners

I disagree, Man Utd weren't funded by massive outside money like Man City and Chelsea. Had our money came from The US or Norway or Saudi or Stamfordham it wouldn't have mattered, what mattered was the amount we seemingly had and that the owners, no matter where from, were prepared to put up.

[jack j]

 

Not sure if this has been posted. But anyway I hate this fucking rat

[Heron]

One thing is for certain, it shows the corrupt nature of the league.

[madras]

5 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

You can imagine the argument though. "If Jeff Bezos bought a club we would have been equally worried about massively inflated Amazon sponsorships." The hardest part of that hearing for the PL lawyer would have been keeping a straight face through the whole thing.

I honestly think they'd have shit themselves similarly.

[Ben]

2 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

So if the PL are claiming they won then why the fuck do they need an emergency meeting!?

 

I've heard the McRib is coming back so it could be that.

[madras]

1 minute ago, jack j said:

 

Not sure if this has been posted. But anyway I hate this fucking rat

No he said that was the worry. A legitimate worry as Man City have quite possibly done that as did PSG.

[et tu brute]

20 minutes ago, High Five o said:

Yes, let’s see. 
The verdict is public and APT is not unlawful as a whole, but parts are.

 

So if parts are unlawful then it is unlawful. Let's see the changes though as we both agree

[Matt1892]

16 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Swings and roundabouts - it potentially reduces buyers for your players in the market, too.

 

I’ve fuck all sympathy for the likes of Brighton, mind.  They’ve had huge sums poured in and the media goes on as if a

miracle has occurred. 

I don’t necessarily see it as swings and roundabouts, I don’t think there was many clubs bemoaning FFP and curtailing the free spending of wealthy clubs as they might not be able to sell their players either.

 

Any restriction that impacts our competition but not us should be seen as a significant boost for the club.

[Keegans Export]

I'm sure it's more nuanced than this but it seems as if the APT rules being applied to sponsorship deals only is not lawful because it doesn't also apply to shareholder loans. So, as it stands, the rules are not lawful. The PL now have to amend the rules to include shareholder loans which could be problematic for some clubs. Presumably this is what is going to be voted on at the next meeting. 

 

They were quick enough to close the "loophole" they thought we might exploit. Let's see how long this takes...

[midds]

Don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the entire league picks a side here which will mean that essentially nothing gets passed. It seems like 2 distinct groups of clubs have formed and with the voting rules as they are then it's not unrealistic to think that if one group of about 7/8 vs the other of 12/13 basically cancel each other out when it comes to passing new rules. Anything that either group doesn't like has enough votes to kill it. The whole thing could get very messy very quickly.

 

You've got clubs acting as witnesses to defend City and the rest emailing and writing letters of objection in the same case. 14 clubs to pass anything seems a lot given the state of things, if 7 stick together then the whole thing looks utterly fucked 

[TheBrownBottle]

32 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I'm sure it's more nuanced than this but it seems as if the APT rules being applied to sponsorship deals only is not lawful because it doesn't also apply to shareholder loans. So, as it stands, the rules are not lawful. The PL now have to amend the rules to include shareholder loans which could be problematic for some clubs. Presumably this is what is going to be voted on at the next meeting. 

 

They were quick enough to close the "loophole" they thought we might exploit. Let's see how long this takes...

That’s the funniest outcome of this - the exposure of these clubs being so completely self-serving as to implement rules against others but not themselves.  

[TheBrownBottle]

24 minutes ago, midds said:

Don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the entire league picks a side here which will mean that essentially nothing gets passed. It seems like 2 distinct groups of clubs have formed and with the voting rules as they are then it's not unrealistic to think that if one group of about 7/8 vs the other of 12/13 basically cancel each other out when it comes to passing new rules. Anything that either group doesn't like has enough votes to kill it. The whole thing could get very messy very quickly.

 

You've got clubs acting as witnesses to defend City and the rest emailing and writing letters of objection in the same case. 14 clubs to pass anything seems a lot given the state of things, if 7 stick together then the whole thing looks utterly fucked 

It’s especially problematic in the present with so many clubs in the top flight whose ‘natural’ home is in the lower leagues who happily vote against ambitious clubs on a self-serving basis while the lower leagues have quite a few clubs who - if they were in the top flight - would likely actually have some ambition 

[gdm]

58 minutes ago, jack j said:

 

Not sure if this has been posted. But anyway I hate this fucking rat

He’s not wrong tho. Amazing how many people doing their nut about this on Twitter. Listen to what he says. He’s talking about why the rules were brought in and he’s right. The clubs panicked and were worried we’d fake sponsorships etc 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by gdm

[SAK]

If the PL meeting is to vote in owner loans to be included in PSR calculations as speculated what happens if it fails? For FMV to be lawful owner loans have to be included in the calculations as I understand (correct me if I’m wrong), does that mean APT rules will have to be dropped to stay lawful?

[Joelinton7]

1 hour ago, jack j said:

 

Not sure if this has been posted. But anyway I hate this fucking rat

I don’t like him but actually no, he didn’t say that. 

[Scotty66]

If the little shitbag Delaney is claiming this is a good thing and it will strengthen PSR () then I think we can safely say this is a huge huge positive in our favour, as whatever he says, the complete opposite usually happens.

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Scotty66