Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Terraloon]

39 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I think the point of PL's arbitration with Man City over disclosure was that the leaked emails were inadmissible, so the PL were requring them to be disclosed and Man City were resisting that.

I think that is in the main correct although the thrust of Cities arguments were that the arbitration panel who agreed with the PL that full disclosure should occur was that the PL panel weren’t competent due in the main to lack of impartiality 

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

I didn't see that one going through.  It felt dodgy during a reporting period to change it.  For the teams that have budgeted within the rules to change it would be daft.  If these rules were continuing for the next few years I could see an argument for setting the limit ahead of time saying in 2025 limit is x etc.  But the rules are being replaced so that can't happen either.  2 in favour are heopefully Villa and Chelsea.  Not us.

 

It was Villas proposal so pretty sure they voted for it. It depends if the clubs coming up had a vote or the clubs going down. I suspect it’s the former if that’s correct it’s likely to be Leicester .

 

 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, nufcnick said:

A rule that a “boys club” puts in place can’t supersede the Law, if it’s knocked back in arbitration”which it will be” mancity can still take it to UK court’s and challenge it as un lawful 

That process is dictated by FIFA

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, Fezzle said:

Not really, makes far more sense to line up with every single clubs accounting periods as opposed getting everyone to do extra work on top of it

The PL version is based on  clubs accounting period and to a degree UEFAs version looks at the same but in terms of squad costs and applicable income is indeed over the period 1/1-31/12

[ikri]

2 hours ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

 

The off-books spending from Man City (and Chelsea) should be the main crime that they're done for. 

 

When have you ever seen a story about a Man City player wanting more money when negotiating a contract?  It happens with every other club, it happened with us and Joelinton this year, yet it never seems to happen with Man City.  How come?  Surely they can't be paying all their players exactly what the players want and giving them such a great experience that they never think to ask for more money.  So far all the leaks show that the off-books payments were for agents, youth players or Mancini but I'm certain that if people were to dig into player's finances properly they'd find that most of their squad is receiving extra money to top up their contracts.

[Scoot]

Marl Douglas saying its the February 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. If they are successful the rules would just go back to what they were when they were first made in 2021, just after our takeover. If this is true, cant see it making a huge amount of difference to us even if City win.

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Scoot said:

Marl Douglas saying its the February 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. If they are successful the rules would just go back to what they were when they were first made in 2021, just after our takeover. If this is true, cant see it making a huge amount of difference to us even if City win.

 

 

what is the fucking point

[Scoot]

3 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

what is the fucking point

 

Exactly. If we just revert back to the 2021 rules, well those rules were brought in to stop us too. So what fucking difference will it make even if City win? 

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

Wonder if £20-£25m for Almiron to Saudi would see us ok for FFP?

 

He's a limited player similar to ASM so dont think hes worth much more than that.

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Newcastle Utd didn’t take the matter to CAT it was ST James  Holdings Ltd. Subtle difference bearing in mind the ownership hierarchy but that was the QCs case and that argument was likely to succeed, as you say, but it was because Ashley hadn’t submitted information in accord it seems with PL regulations.
 

SJHL case  was that they weren’t duty bound to the football bodies (FA& PL) process of arbitration as dictated to by FIFA and in reality had the PL been of a mind they could in all likelihood have charged  Ashley & NUFC 

 

 

The case was also that the claim that SJHL were bringing was outside of the scope of the arbitration process.

 

Either something is within the scope of the PL arbitration process, and that allows for appeal to the High Court on points of law, or it is not, which would possibly allow any relevent claim to be made to the CAT. Which I'm sure the PL would challenge the juridriction of but that would be something argued out by both sides and decsided on by the tribunal. It's probably not open and shut either way and either way.

[Terraloon]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The case was also that the claim that SJHL were bringing was outside of the scope of the arbitration process.

 

Either something is within the scope of the PL arbitration process, and that allows for appeal to the High Court on points of law, or it is not, which would possibly allow any relevent claim to be made to the CAT. Which I'm sure the PL would challenge the juridriction of but that would be something argued out by both sides and decsided on by the tribunal. It's probably not open and shut either way and either way.

The claim if I remember was that SJHL not being NUFC wasn’t bound by the arbitration process as SJHL simply put wasn’t “The Club” in effect that was the thrust of the referral.
 

The CAT clearly didn’t rule on matters as it was felt that the separate process ( Arbitration under FA rule) would almost certainly resolve the matter before it and I guess it’s all irrelevant because you are where you are.
 

The point you make about the referral to the HC the point of law being CAT jurisdiction is interesting and something I haven’t really considered but thinking about that I wonder if PL rules would take precedence but again that would I can see your thinking in that regard.

[Whitley mag]

The PL is fucking rotten the way Sky/media would wank themselves silly if City activated Bruno’s clause, would just about finish me off with football. 
 

They’d all miss the point that a club trying to make the league more interesting and competitive has had to sell a key asset to comply with FFP and quite what he’d bring to City would add nothing to the leagues appeal.

 

The media are just as much to blame for this current top 6 situation and their cronies with links to these clubs lap it up.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Whitley mag

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

The claim if I remember was that SJHL not being NUFC wasn’t bound by the arbitration process as SJHL simply put wasn’t “The Club” in effect that was the thrust of the referral.
 

The CAT clearly didn’t rule on matters as it was felt that the separate process ( Arbitration under FA rule) would almost certainly resolve the matter before it and I guess it’s all irrelevant because you are where you are.
 

The point you make about the referral to the HC the point of law being CAT jurisdiction is interesting and something I haven’t really considered but thinking about that I wonder if PL rules would take precedence but again that would I can see your thinking in that regard.

 

I've had a quick skim over the transcript and our case was that SJHL wasn't bound by the PL's rules but also that, even if it were, the claim was outside of the scope of the PL arbitration.

 

The CAT obviously didn't get a chance to rule on jurisdiction because the the PL allowed the takeover a week later.

[Stifler]

One question, going to assume accounts haven’t been filed, they couldn’t have been because the deadline hasn’t happaned.

So how the fuck would Sky, the Premier League, or anyone else outside of NUFC know if we are close to or have breached the rules.

Fucking Chronicle levels of journalism this.

[huss9]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

One question, going to assume accounts haven’t been filed, they couldn’t have been because the deadline hasn’t happaned.

So how the fuck would Sky, the Premier League, or anyone else outside of NUFC know if we are close to or have breached the rules.

Fucking Chronicle levels of journalism this.

got their own accountants to look through our transfers, wages, sponsorships, ticket sales etc etc and then guesstimated the rest.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, huss9 said:

got their own accountants to look through our transfers, wages, sponsorships, ticket sales etc etc and then guesstimated the rest.

All of which will be confidential and only estimated.

[Abacus]

11 minutes ago, Stifler said:

One question, going to assume accounts haven’t been filed, they couldn’t have been because the deadline hasn’t happaned.

So how the fuck would Sky, the Premier League, or anyone else outside of NUFC know if we are close to or have breached the rules.

Fucking Chronicle levels of journalism this.

 

They'll all have estimates of where they'd expect to end up at this point. It would then take a while to approve and file the official numbers, and to make the various deductions and additions required by FFP, I'd guess. 

 

Which is probably why you won't find out who was actually officially in breach, if anyone is, till next year after the season starts. But I've been beaten to the punch by huss9.

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, Scoot said:

Marl Douglas saying its the February 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. If they are successful the rules would just go back to what they were when they were first made in 2021, just after our takeover. If this is true, cant see it making a huge amount of difference to us even if City win.

 

 

Do they mean APT rules? 

[Terraloon]

40 minutes ago, huss9 said:

got their own accountants to look through our transfers, wages, sponsorships, ticket sales etc etc and then guesstimated the rest.

 The author or source of the information is Muguire ( Spelling) who has put himself up as an expert.

 

Treat everything he says with a tin of salt . He can read a set of accounts that much is clear but his assumptions on a club to club basis are based on those but post say the 30/6/23 accounts he has no idea for instance what amortisation will look like at end of 31/6/24. He basis his estimates on the likes of transfer market who yes are probably in the ball park but still not accurate enough  but even then the  numbers shown in the  accounts will be subject to adjustments.

 

On top of all that discussions are ongoing all the time between clubs and the PL indeed the Everton IC gave an insight into such discussions and allowances are agreed which again don’t feature in accounts.

 

Then you have allowable deductibles again assumptions but no more than that . How much has been claimed for academy , how much for woman’s football how much for allowable exceptional  items  etc.

[Keegans Export]

The associated party transactions were the original "fair market value" ones yes? And the amendments were the recent ones where they shifted from the PL having to show a prospective deal isn't fair market value to the sponsor/club having to prove that it is?

[Scoot]

6 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Do they mean APT rules? 

 

Yes. It's the 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. The rule that was brought in in 2021 just after our takeover, would still be in place according to Douglas. Have the rest of the media missed this or has Douglas got it wrong?

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

12 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Yes. It's the 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. The rule that was brought in in 2021 just after our takeover, would still be in place according to Douglas. Have the rest of the media missed this or has Douglas got it wrong?

I’m hoping it’s a house of cards. 

[Whitley mag]

21 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Yes. It's the 2024 ammendments that City are challenging. The rule that was brought in in 2021 just after our takeover, would still be in place according to Douglas. Have the rest of the media missed this or has Douglas got it wrong?

The original article doesn’t read as Douglas implies, find it hard to believe there would be this much uproar if they were just challenging the amendment part surely.

[Ben]

Pray for Indy

[Scoot]

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

The original article doesn’t read as Douglas implies, find it hard to believe there would be this much uproar if they were just challenging the amendment part surely.

 

Yeah, I've just read the times article again, the ones who broke the story and they say City are looking to end the APT rules.

 

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-legal-action-premier-league-hearing-7k6r5glhq