Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

The budget was 8m.  They’ve spent 45m.  So each club will have nearly 2m less income.  It would be amusing if this 2m put all 20 clubs into breach of the financial regulations and all 20 appealed…

They would literally be eating themselves, hilariously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the hearing was confidential, if there was going to have to be a change in the rules (i.e. if the PL lost some or part of the argument) they'd have to inform the member clubs and it's inevitable at least one of those clubs will leak it. If the PL "won" then I suppose they could still call a meeting to report that to the clubs but they presumably wouldn't have to as it'd just be business as usual?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, r0cafella said:

It’s such an impeccable racket. I was thinking spot forest and how they got done, it’s really bizarre promoted clubs have less FFP leeway when promoted, how to be anything but a yo-yo club in such situations? The incumbent advantage is monumental and it’s why most of the clubs love these rules you are basically protected from competition weather your a cartel club or an established mid table club. 

Didn't the American owners club want rid of promotion/relegation ? They almost have it.

 

 

Edited by madras

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Keegans Export said:

For all the hearing was confidential, if there was going to have to be a change in the rules (i.e. if the PL lost some or part of the argument) they'd have to inform the member clubs and it's inevitable at least one of those clubs will leak it. If the PL "won" then I suppose they could still call a meeting to report that to the clubs but they presumably wouldn't have to as it'd just be business as usual?

 

Yeah, that's how I read it too. A meeting is much more likely to indicate Man City have won and the rules need to be changed, which can only be done with the agreement of the clubs, otherwise it would just be business as usual.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Yeah, that's how I read it too. A meeting is much more likely to indicate Man City have won and the rules need to be changed, which can only be done with the agreement of the clubs, otherwise it would just be business as usual.

 

 

 

 

So what happens if City win and PL need to change some rules. But the other clubs won't vote to change those rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

So what happens if City win and PL need to change some rules. But the other clubs won't vote to change those rules?

 

Affected clubs, like Man City and us, would probably be able to apply for an injunction or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Yeah, that's how I read it too. A meeting is much more likely to indicate Man City have won and the rules need to be changed, which can only be done with the agreement of the clubs, otherwise it would just be business as usual.

 

 

 


This is a regularly scheduled shareholder meeting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I recon all the rumours about this week was someone taking a guess that we’d hear something due to the scheduled meeting. 


Yeah, just saying the fact there’s a meeting doesn’t tell us anything about the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:


Yeah, just saying the fact there’s a meeting doesn’t tell us anything about the outcome.

That's right, however if the Premier League are going to have to change their rules on APTs then that has to be relayed to the other clubs and that will leak out pretty quickly.

 

If it doesn't then we can assume either the result of the arbitration hasn't been decided yet or the rules are staying as they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andy84 said:

If there is a victory for City surely there can’t be a rule that supersedes this ?

They’ll try and this is the part us, Villa and City need to steam in to shut them down. Any attempt to try and re-handcuff teams looks beyond suspect and collusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...