Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Unbelievable]

1 minute ago, Fezzle said:

The first one is about related market stuff, the results are due. Second is the 115 charges that will start soon

Ok cheers, so the first one is of particular interest to us and the second one not so much..?

[FloydianMag]

Yep

[Unbelievable]

From Man City's perspective I suppose the outcome of the first hearing will be of significant impact on their chances of winning the second one. If related party restrictions get lifted or relaxed for being anti-competitive, that undermines the PL's case against them massively.

[Fezzle]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

From Man City's perspective I suppose the outcome of the first hearing will be of significant impact on their chances of winning the second one. If related party restrictions get lifted or relaxed for being anti-competitive, that undermines the PL's case against them massively.

Arent many of the charges coming up about very shady payments/book cooking? Despite them clearly being bang to rights they will somehow get away with a fine or token points deduction as the PL would never open the can of worms of removing titles or relegation. Other clubs would line up to sue

[FloydianMag]

Just now, Unbelievable said:

From Man City's perspective I suppose the outcome of the first hearing will be of significant impact on their chances of winning the second one. If related party restrictions get lifted or relaxed for being anti-competitive, that undermines the PL's case against them massively.

Not according to Stefan Borson, some of the 115 charges allege fraud🤷🏼‍♂️

[Infinitely Content]

16 hours ago, brummie said:

Emery's two henchmen talking about PSR / FFP on TalkSpot today. Worth listening.

 

 

That Damian Vidagany comes across really well. Not the usual business-speak bore, seems a passionate and knowledgable lover of the game. He has mannerisms and traits of our beloved Rafa.

You lot have plenty to be grateful for, so very well ran with excellent people in place it would appear. I'm just glad we beat Villa regularly otherwise I'd start getting really bitter 

 

 

Edited August 15 by Infinitely Content

[Unbelievable]

I was just watching a Man City fan podcast thingy on those APR and 115 hearings just now, and they're on about Newcastle going mad if APR gets scrapped and no other club has a chance of competing with us with surprisingly little self awareness :

 

 

[Jackie Broon]

23 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

From Man City's perspective I suppose the outcome of the first hearing will be of significant impact on their chances of winning the second one. If related party restrictions get lifted or relaxed for being anti-competitive, that undermines the PL's case against them massively.

 

Yes but I think City's case specifically relates to the new more restrictive rules which came in earlier this year, rather than the rules at the time they are alleged to have breached.

[cubaricho]

NBC just saying that we won't know the outcome of the Man City stuff until the new year.

[FloydianMag]

16 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

NBC just saying that we won't know the outcome of the Man City stuff until the new year.

The 115 charges? That could be correct if the hearing commences mid September 

[Pokerprince2004]

Probably missed amongst the forest game but apparently Chelsea could be fucked, shame 

 

 

[Stifler]

7 minutes ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

Probably missed amongst the forest game but apparently Chelsea could be fucked, shame 

 

 

They won’t kick them out now, and if they do you just know that they’ll give their space to the shit team they beat in the qualifiers instead of us.

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, Stifler said:

They won’t kick them out now, and if they do you just know that they’ll give their space to the shit team they beat in the qualifiers instead of us.

It says in the article that any punishment will be applied from next season 

[Stifler]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

It says in the article that any punishment will be applied from next season 

Oh right, so what’s the fucking point then?

’We’ll let you in this time, but you need to promise not to do it again’.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Keegans Export said:

It says in the article that any punishment will be applied from next season 

Chelsea’s game plan has seemed to be to worry about it next season. 

[Keegans Export]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Oh right, so what’s the fucking point then?

’We’ll let you in this time, but you need to promise not to do it again’.

Absolute bollocks isn't it? It'll just be a fine anyway I imagine. 

[Stifler]

Just now, Keegans Export said:

Absolute bollocks isn't it? It'll just be a fine anyway I imagine. 

Everton get 2 points deductions, Forest get a points deduction, Leicester on the verge of getting a points deduction, then the Premier League and UEFA just look at what Chelsea are doing and give them a cheeky smile.

[timeEd32]

Tell them they'll be banned for next season > they sort out their issues > UEFA agrees to forego punishments since Chelsea has worked hard to be compliant

[Turnbull2000]

At worst they'll probably get the Juventus treatment - wait till they fail to qualify for the Champions League, then ban them from a competition (Europa League) they probably don't want to be in anyway. If Chelsea finish top 4 this season, expect a suspended suspension

[Jackie Broon]

That seems ripe for a legal challenge if Chelsea do get a propper punishment.

 

It's one thing requiring transactions to be fair market value but if they're saying no transactions at all between sister companies that seems clearly anti-competative.

[FloydianMag]

15 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

That seems ripe for a legal challenge if Chelsea do get a propper punishment.

 

It's one thing requiring transactions to be fair market value but if they're saying no transactions at all between sister companies that seems clearly anti-competative.

Isn’t that why City challenged the APT rules on the basis of them being anti competitive? International break next week and I wouldn’t be surprised City’s arbitration rulings being leaked.

[Jackie Broon]

49 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Isn’t that why City challenged the APT rules on the basis of them being anti competitive? International break next week and I wouldn’t be surprised City’s arbitration rulings being leaked.

 

From what has been reported City have specifically challenged the PLs new rules on fair market value (which put the burden of proof on clubs to prove that APTs are at fair market value), not the rules that existed before that.

 

If UEFA are dismissing any property transaction made between suster companies, even at fair market value, that seems like a much more clear-cut case of being anti-competative. 

[FloydianMag]

7 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

From what has been reported City have specifically challenged the PLs new rules on fair market value (which put the burden of proof on clubs to prove that APTs are at fair market value), not the rules that existed before that.

 

If UEFA are dismissing any property transaction made between suster companies, even at fair market value, that seems like a much more clear-cut case of being anti-competative. 

The more governing bodies get involved in clubs commercial activities the more they open themselves to legal challenges, you can see an almighty legal battle on the horizon which won’t end well for UEFA or the PL.

[Lush Vlad]

 

We need a bit of this. If we could just sell some of our own buildings and assets back to ourselves too. Then we could avoid further PSR breaches. 

[Jackie Broon]

8 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

 

We need a bit of this. If we could just sell some of our own buildings and assets back to ourselves too. Then we could avoid further PSR breaches. 

 

We don't have any property we could sell at anywhere near enought to make a difference to PSR. We don't own the land St. James' is on and the training ground land wouldn't be worth more than a mediocre PL player.