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

[Memphis]

It is the one area that American sports get much more right. Leagues have specific salary caps that are agreed to by all parties, both clubs and players. Collectively bargained so as to avoid this sort of litigation. Ultimately that is where the Premier League will have to go if they genuinely want to solve this issue. 

[timeEd32]

The Premier League's statement will be "Due to the ruling by the tribunal, Everton Football Club have breached PSR for three straight years and will be deducted 20 points."

[Adam]

PL are to blame for all of this. Loads of bullshit about being sustainable whilst actually just limiting competition. A spending cap is the way to go allowing all clubs in the same league to spend the same value, if you stay in a higher league longer you can spend more over the long run. We just need someone to challenge UEFA co-efficient nonsense, its fine for seeding draws but prize money should be equal for all teams in the same competitions. 

[Wallsendmag]

Great news. I'm off to spend the rest of my day on RTG now. See you all later.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, jack j said:

Any statement from the premier league yet?

‘Please, please think about our clubs who need help, such as Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Spurs’.

[Keegans Export]

Reading this through the prism of their 115-charges case, is this essentially saying "Take us down and we take loads of you down with us"?

 

If they're arguing that FMV should apply to shareholder loans as well as sponsorship and that would result in loads of clubs falling foul of the rules, maybe there'd be enough support to ditch those rules...?

[jack j]

"The Tribunal has concluded, the APT Rules must now integrate the assessment of Shareholder loans and remove some of the amendments made to APT Rules earlier this year. Otherwise, the Premier League rulebook has been found to comply with competition and public law standards and is an effective and necessary system for assessing the FMV of APTs to ensure the integrity of the League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules. We are conducting a process that can allow the League and clubs to enact those specific changes quickly and effectively."

 

Just seen this apparently from the premier league.

 

Edit here's the full statement

 

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4144828

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by jack j

[54]

Quote

The decision of an Arbitration Panel has been published (click here) following a legal challenge by Manchester City FC against the Premier League’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) Rules.

The Premier League welcomes the Tribunal’s findings, which endorsed the overall objectives, framework and decision-making of the APT system. The Tribunal upheld the need for the APT system as a whole and rejected the majority of Manchester City’s challenges. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the Rules are necessary in order for the League’s financial controls to be effective. 

The decision represents an important and detailed assessment of the APT Rules, which ensure clubs are not able to benefit from commercial deals or reductions in costs that are not at Fair Market Value (FMV) by virtue of relationships with Associated Parties. These Rules were introduced to provide a robust mechanism to safeguard the financial stability, integrity and competitive balance of the League. 

The Tribunal did, however, identify a small number of discrete elements of the Rules which do not, in their current form, comply with competition and public law requirements (more information below). These elements can quickly and effectively be remedied by the League and clubs. 

In the meantime, the Premier League will continue to operate the existing APT system, taking into account the findings made by the Tribunal.

While the Arbitration process is confidential, the Premier League and the Club have agreed to make public a redacted copy of the decision, withholding only confidential and commercially sensitive information. 

Thats from the Premier Leagues statement, doesn't seem to be as big a smoking gun as first thought?

[Jack27]

1 minute ago, jack j said:

"The Tribunal has concluded, the APT Rules must now integrate the assessment of Shareholder loans and remove some of the amendments made to APT Rules earlier this year. Otherwise, the Premier League rulebook has been found to comply with competition and public law standards and is an effective and necessary system for assessing the FMV of APTs to ensure the integrity of the League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules. We are conducting a process that can allow the League and clubs to enact those specific changes quickly and effectively."

 

Just seen this apparently from the premier league.

 

Edit here's the full statement

 

https://www.premierleague.com/news/4144828

 

 

 

so we're not back?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

14 minutes ago, TRC said:

I cant really understand how this will work going forward, its an incredibly messy situation for all teams.

 

Haven't a clue what it means in practice either. 

[Sibierski]

3 minutes ago, TRC said:

It is, but a team shouldnt be allowed to do what City did really they went from a nothing club, to the best club in the world just because they had unlimited funds. There has to be some rules in place to stop that, while also allowing teams to grow.

 

Either way the whole thing is a mess now.

 

They were a top 10 prem club arguably before, and probably where they would've remained forever (like us) without the funds, as the top sides kept others at arms length.

 

Not like they're some village club that had no fans, no history, nothing before rocking the house at the top.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, 54 said:

Thats from the Premier Leagues statement, doesn't seem to be as big a smoking gun as first thought?

Yeah this reads as if city win the argument but it doesn’t remove or change the existing rules much. 
 

Theyve given the clubs a bloody nose though, but the fix is just to write off the loans on the clubs balance sheets. 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Jack27 said:

so we're not back?

Rules are not changing so no. Back to square one with zero chance of the members (the clubs) changing the rules. 

[jack j]

Knew it was too good to be true

[TRC]

9 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

The Premier League's statement will be "Due to the ruling by the tribunal, Everton Football Club have breached PSR for three straight years and will be deducted 20 points."

Look I'm more than fine with that. Maybe we just need to cripple Everton and draw a line under this whole thing.

 

We will get revenge on them for that Gravesen tackle at some point.

[Shearergol]

So basically just gives the likes of Arsenal a bit of time to sort those shareholder loans out before next year. Nothing else.

[Heron]

16 minutes ago, TRC said:

I think its funny how Everton fans wanted City to win this so badly, but they are the ones that could be completely crippled by it.

The Premier League have entirely fucked this up. What amused me was Everton singing that to the referee when a) it wasn't a penalty and b) we're the ones being fucked by it the most. We've literally been chained to the floor by any means possible to prevent us from taking off.

 

It's shit tbf, money is absolutely ruining the game. That being said, hasn't money always meant those with greater resource get to the top? So it's just an issue now we could theoretically blow teams entirely out the water?

 

Elon Musk will buy Man United now

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Heron

[Gaztoon]

How can the rules remain if deemed unlawful ?

[cosmic]

[Mag3.14]

So if they have to introduce the shareholder loan costs you'd think this would need to be backdated to the introduction of the FMV rules (i.e 2021)?  Surely this is going to hammer a vast number of clubs now (Arsenal, Brighton, Chelsea, Leicester, Bournemouth, Wolves, Brentford  and Especially Everton) You wonder if there will be a desire to get the rules abolished by the clubs themselves?

 

 

[Mikky]

12 minutes ago, Adam said:

PL are to blame for all of this. Loads of bullshit about being sustainable whilst actually just limiting competition. A spending cap is the way to go allowing all clubs in the same league to spend the same value, if you stay in a higher league longer you can spend more over the long run. We just need someone to challenge UEFA co-efficient nonsense, its fine for seeding draws but prize money should be equal for all teams in the same competitions. 

RE UEFA - didn’t Man U get twice more than us in the CL last season? Both failed to progress from the group 

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

How can the rules remain if deemed unlawful ?

They can’t, the Premier League trying to do damage limitation.

[Upthemags]

A muddled ruling. It's time to start slaming major interested-party advert deals, and litigate the challenges as they inevitably arise. We've seen from Man City that litigating these issues can allow for a massive leg up, as we can build up revenue for years before any sort of punishment comes down.

 

Both sides are claiming a victory here, and APT rules have been upheld as a whole. Time to play dirty like the rest of them!

[Shearergol]

Just now, Mag3.14 said:

So if they have to introduce the shareholder loan costs you'd think this would need to be backdated to the introduction of the FMV rules (i.e 2021)?  Surely this is going to hammer a vast number of clubs now (Arsenal, Brighton, Chelsea, Leicester, Bournemouth, Wolves, Brentford  and Especially Everton) You wonder if there will be a desire to get the rules abolished by the clubs themselves?

 

 

 

I doubt they'll backdate them. They'll just give all of those clubs time to sort them out (like 5 years should do it) whilst still hampering our progress.

[Dokko]

PL teams losing their pot as well due to massive legal costs, so psr hurting them more. So many more cases like this coming their way.