Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[huss9]

Just now, Bimpy474 said:

Good news my arse, aye on the face of it. However, you know they're now putting plans in place, to keep the same restrictions in place in some other guise.

 

Hope I'm wrong, but there's no way they will give in, not a chance they'll admit anything, or have rule changes that will benefit anyone challenging the status quo.

 

 

 

are the cartel clubs going to risk even more millions on further legal battles?

[Bimpy474]

Just now, huss9 said:

are the cartel clubs going to risk even more millions on further legal battles?

 

I hope not mate, but after everything they've done up to this point, can you see them backing down ? I don't. As much i hope they do.

[FloydianMag]

13 minutes ago, SAK said:

Time to introduce a maximum transfer and salary budget cap that all clubs can spend up to. None of this you can only spend x% of your earnings which you can’t grow by the way as you can’t invest in your business even though I built my empire when there were no restrictions and I can spend freely.

Salary caps will end up in more litigation.

[FloydianMag]

31 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

The issue is the numbers, Man City, Newcastle, Everton, Forrest and Leicester will be against any new rules that are legally compliant. 

 

The PL will need 14 votes to get their way, unless some clubs abstain. That means 3 more clubs have to be against. Villa are one potentially, Chelsea another. Who is the third 

They only need 7 clubs to oppose rules not 8.

[High Five o]

30 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

No the tribunal judged that APT was unlawful 

This is not correct.

Read the verdict, or at least the summary.

 

It was only because of the interest free loans not being taken into account and the time and transparency when ruling the FMV that was deemed unlawful.

[SAK]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

Salary caps will end up in more litigation.

Why do think that? It would be a cap on  the overall budget available to spend on salaries rather than a maximum amount allowable for an individual.

[Hudson]

20 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

So if the PL are claiming they won then why the fuck do they need an emergency meeting!?

Celebrating there win maybe.

[Heron]

48 minutes ago, Skeletor said:

I am dead from shock that the cartel were acting unlawfully.

[FloydianMag]

Just now, SAK said:

Why do think that? It would be a cap on  the overall budget available to spend on salaries rather than a maximum amount allowable for an individual.

PFA would take action……..and as I keep saying governing bodies should stick to organising competitions and stop involving themselves in clubs commercial activities.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Hudson said:

Celebrating there win maybe.

Aye the champagne will be flowing

[Heron]

38 minutes ago, 54 said:

Just as an aside, modern football is the pits.

 

PSR; Financial Fair Play; VAR; the standard of refereeing; the fact that states can buy clubs; the fact the capitalists can buy clubs with the only care being to flip a profit; ticket and merchandise prices hikes; TV price hikes; fake fans like Mark Goldbridge continually stoking a negative narrative all to generate clicks and divide discourse; inflated transfer fees and wages that mean the common person can't relate to the people they're watching; the Premier League/ La Liga etc prioritizing and favoring select clubs just because they have the biggest "brand". 

 

All of it shit, utter utter shit and its going to lead to a point where at some point football is going to implode in on itself, and i'm starting to think it needs to happen sooner rather than later.

Amen to that.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

9 minutes ago, High Five o said:

This is not correct.

Read the verdict, or at least the summary.

 

It was only because of the interest free loans not being taken into account and the time and transparency when ruling the FMV that was deemed unlawful.

They also ruled the onus to prove a deal is fair shouldn’t lie with the clubs themselves and that not disclosing the figures other clubs have for similar deals is in of itself anti-competitive 

[Jonas]

Football has for at least all my time been about a pecking order of money really.  The only value 'sporting merit' would have is if everyone started equal every season. Even if the champions of the previous season recieve more money, its skewered by money already.

The order might change but invariably wealthy clubs are at the top.

Relative sucess and hard-times of clubs has been relative to how rich and then not clubs were (Blackburn, Napoli, Parma, Boro, Leeds, PSG, Milan, OM, ourselves under various owners) which impacts the sporting merit side.

 

I'm not in favour of rampant spending but am even less in favour of preserving the contemporary elites at the expense of ambition and change even dreams. Except Arsenal they usurped other clubs to get there throughout history and should no more be protected than the dozens of clubs they overhauled especially as they cemented their lot in the money-era where things had been changeable previously.

We (and Villa) were building very reasonably doing very smart business and even that has been blocked and glass ceilinged. That's been a massive over-reach.

 

[High Five o]

6 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

They also ruled the onus to prove a deal is fair shouldn’t lie with the clubs themselves and that not disclosing the figures other clubs have for similar deals is in of itself anti-competitive 

Indeed, that was the transparency part. Just badly worded.

 

 

[Heron]

My suspicion is that as clubs have acted seemingly within the rules of the Premier League they can not now be reprimanded for operating within said rules. So any retrospective repercussions simply won't exist. That means that leaves only the here and now and the future. My suspicion there is that clubs will be advised to fall in line with PSR etc. By the end of the season or face repercussions in the new season. That way clubs have time to respond and tow the line.

 

As for the Man City crack and FMV then I suspect there'll be changes to that ruling that ultimately enforce it in a more transparent and fair manner moving forward so to maintain the existing status quo and prevent those such as our good selves blowing it out the water or extending the so called "elite" to another club.

 

How they do that, would have to be defined and so, it wouldn't surprise me if a cap or period of "closure" was implemented to manage this until they define the new and transparent measures.

 

To someone else's earlier point (Bimpy?) I'd be surprised to see rival clubs back off now. Instead I think they'll double down together and possibly against the Premier League.

 

The only thing that is absolutely certain now is that the Premier League is absolutely and entirely fucked with regards to credibility.

[TheBrownBottle]

55 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

No the tribunal judged that APT was unlawful 

It didn’t at all

 

Simon Leaf, partner and head of sport at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told BBC Sport: "Whilst the decision will be embarrassing for the Premier League, because in a couple of narrow areas their rules have been found to be unlawful, generally speaking the decision confirms that the vast majority of the APT rules are indeed lawful.

"Therefore whilst we can expect to see some changes to the rules going forwards, on the whole this isn’t a resounding victory for Manchester City by any stretch of the imagination."

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cq5eyvl7nggo.amp

[Hank Marvin]

 

Cockheads.

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Hank Marvin

[Steve Charlton]

We should sue for damages/loss of earnings.One of these bastards beat us in a major cup final all with bent rules in their favour

[Jonas]

Its an absolutely colossal mess they've made - really don't see how this mess and the ones to come was worth it just to protect the cartel, was fear of a big8 really worth this shit?

 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by Jonas

[madras]

41 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Maybe or maybe not as Saudis Arabia FMV will be different to the UK and if knocked will certainly be legally challenged. That doesn't change the fact the tribunal ruled that APT was unlawful 

So if its unlawful it will be 100% rescinded ? Do you think it will ?

[TheBrownBottle]

The ruling is about the new rules from February and shareholder loans.  We’re as we were at the beginning of the year - ie with the rules that were brought in when the takeover went through.

 

For us, the status quo remains.  So if the club wants to grow, its finger-pulling-out time. 

[TheBrownBottle]

31 minutes ago, High Five o said:

This is not correct.

Read the verdict, or at least the summary.

 

It was only because of the interest free loans not being taken into account and the time and transparency when ruling the FMV that was deemed unlawful.

Yep.  I’m not seeing the victory for Man City here, beyond some narrow interpretation of FMV.  The burden of proof is back with the PL, and shareholder loans not being taken into account.  And that’s it. 

[Heron]

What this should highlight to us as a club though is that the intent from virtually all but Man City was to stop us dead in our financial tracks. So fuck the other 18 or so.

[lovejoy]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

The ruling is about the new rules from February and shareholder loans.  We’re as we were at the beginning of the year - ie with the rules that were brought in when the takeover went through.

 

For us, the status quo remains.  So if the club wants to grow, its finger-pulling-out time. 

 

This is likely to change the way PSR is handled moving forward. It’s good news for NUFC, regardless of how it’s spun by the legal experts suddenly popping up all over the internet today.

[TheBrownBottle]

51 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

So if the PL are claiming they won then why the fuck do they need an emergency meeting!?

Because they still need to amend the rules in the narrow areas where the PL rules were ruled illegal?