Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[timeEd32]

5 minutes ago, Andy84 said:

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

 

My assumption is if there's any grey area in the ruling or if it was on a technicality then they will do everything they can to introduce a new rule on the right side of whatever line is drawn.

 

Hopefully it's a resounding City victory combined with a lessening appetite for lawsuits.

[vexred]

https://x.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/1839288683414888575?t=1DCBl1oNvNAS3LUgczEdTQ&s=19

[Maggies]

Weren’t City after damages as well for loss of earnings. Let’s hope they’re substantial!

 

Any idea on what the ATP votes was going to be about today?

 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Maggies

[Stal]

1 minute ago, Maggies said:

Weren’t City after damages as well for loss of earnings. Let’s hope they’re substantial!

 

Any idea on what the ATP votes was going to be about today?

 

 

 

 

I would guess on whether they are to remain, go or change. Haven't seen anything else on it.

[jack j]

Come on Citehhh

[Pilko]

Every blade of grass, every brick, every sink, tap, urinal and shitter all sponsored by Sela and Friends. Let's go.

[NG32]

They could make life much easier if all 20 clubs agree on a set transfer limit that they all stick to and cant exceed over a calendar year or season. 

 

 

[Nucasol]

3 minutes ago, Maggies said:

Weren’t City after damages as well for loss of earnings. Let’s hope they’re substantial!

 

Any idea on what the ATP votes was going to be about today?

 

 

 

Yep - pressing for damages for rules that were brought in purposely to stifle them.

 

A lot of PL clubs are going to be pissed their revenues are being spent on the mistakes made by Masters to ingratiate himself with his Cartel Chums once they see the PL clawing back legal rebates from the central pot.

[mondonewc]

Feels like a leap based on the info they're sharing to say this means City definitely won the case, how legit is this guy? Not just another clickbaiting wanker?

[r0cafella]

Just now, NG32 said:

They could make life much easier if all 20 clubs agree on a set transfer limit that they all stick to and cant exceed over a calendar year or season. 

 

 

Thats too much potential competition and these clubs do not want competition. 

[Jackie Broon]

7 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 
 

are owners will be shitting it.   No financial rules to hide behind 😈

 

This probably doesn't sweep the PSR and APT rules aside, it probably just takes the APT rules back to where they were a year ago, with the onus of the PL to prove that associated party transactions are not fair market value rather than on the clubs to prove they are.

[Nucasol]

Just now, mondonewc said:

Feels like a leap based on the info they're sharing to say this means City definitely won the case, how legit is this guy? Not just another clickbaiting wanker?

Number of journos - Lawton, Keegan running with a similar briefing.

[SUPERTOON]

So how much does this help us ?

[mondonewc]

Just now, Nucasol said:

Number of journos - Lawton, Keegan running with a similar briefing.

This is always the pattern though right? One twat says something, rest of them jump on for the clicks. Nowhere is reporting it outside of Twitter? 

[Pokerprince2004]

3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

So how much does this help us ?

 

Lee Ryder reckons upto 300m

 

 

 

[Nucasol]

2 minutes ago, mondonewc said:

This is always the pattern though right? One twat says something, rest of them jump on for the clicks. Nowhere is reporting it outside of Twitter? 

I thought Lawton was close to Chelsea/Villa so could be briefing through one of them. Villa definitely have an axe to grind with these rules.

[gbandit]

3 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

So how much does this help us ?

I think we’ll find out in the next few months. There are some things that PIF inevitably need a lot of time on (e.g. the stadium) but increasing sponsor investment from people under their control is something they can do almost immediately

[janpawel]

7 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

This probably doesn't sweep the PSR and APT rules aside, it probably just takes the APT rules back to where they were a year ago, with the onus of the PL to prove that associated party transactions are not fair market value rather than on the clubs to prove they are.

This, hopefully Silverstone fancies doing some overtime if this ruling allows us more favourable sponsorships

[Scoot]

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

This probably doesn't sweep the PSR and APT rules aside, it probably just takes the APT rules back to where they were a year ago, with the onus of the PL to prove that associated party transactions are not fair market value rather than on the clubs to prove they are.

 

As has been saud many times. Its widely reported City were looking to get them scrapped completely. I'm not saying that is what's happened, but that was their aim.

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

 

As has been saud many times. Its widely reported City were looking to get them scrapped completely. I'm not saying that is what's happened, but that was their aim.

If the panel have agreed they are against competition law (which they are), then they have no choice but to scrap them.

[timeEd32]

7 minutes ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

 

Lee Ryder reckons upto 300m

 

 

 

 

That's based on Dr. Rob Wilson's quotes: 

 

"If City win this APT case, and it allows APTs in the Premier League, then what we’ll see is some massive sponsorship deals signed almost immediately by Newcastle to boost their transfer budget for next summer. It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they spend over £300m on pure player transfers."

 

That would mean, very roughly speaking, that we'd add about £150m in revenue instantly. I'm not sure how anyone lands at these assumptions.

[Andy84]

Seems far fetched 

[Scoot]

https://archive.is/pYTq0

[Pixelphish]

Are we rich again?

[SUPERTOON]