SUPERTOON Posted Tuesday at 11:39 Share Posted Tuesday at 11:39 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted Tuesday at 12:01 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:01 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted Tuesday at 12:05 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:05 The winds are changing direction rather quickly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Tuesday at 12:36 Share Posted Tuesday at 12:36 29 minutes ago, et tu brute said: The winds are changing direction rather quickly This is cole, Villa who also loathe these rules supporting another member who loathes these rules isn't shocking at all. The wind required is 14 votes to make more equitable rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 13:44 Share Posted Tuesday at 13:44 Think all the clubs involved in FFP shenanigans with maybe Everton as an exception have owners that would pump money into clubs via inflated sponsorships if possible - no? Forest Chelsea Us Villa Leicester That would leave us 2 short of preventing crappy rules. We’ll find out soon enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted Tuesday at 14:02 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:02 17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Think all the clubs involved in FFP shenanigans with maybe Everton as an exception have owners that would pump money into clubs via inflated sponsorships if possible - no? Forest Chelsea Us Villa Leicester That would leave us 2 short of preventing crappy rules. We’ll find out soon enough. City Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Tuesday at 14:05 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:05 2 minutes ago, et tu brute said: City Don’t we only need 6 dissenters? It’ll hopefully be us, City, Chelsea, Everton, Villa, Leicester and Forest. Back to the drawing board wanky red shirt cuntbags. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovejoy Posted Tuesday at 14:12 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:12 27 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: Think all the clubs involved in FFP shenanigans with maybe Everton as an exception have owners that would pump money into clubs via inflated sponsorships if possible - no? Forest Chelsea Us Villa Leicester That would leave us 2 short of preventing crappy rules. We’ll find out soon enough. Man City Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Tuesday at 14:34 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:34 Man Utd not be more likely to want to inflate sponsorship now ? Ornstein was on sky yesterday saying they have no money to spend in January due to FFP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted Tuesday at 14:39 Share Posted Tuesday at 14:39 4 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Man Utd not be more likely to want to inflate sponsorship now ? Ornstein was on sky yesterday saying they have no money to spend in January due to FFP. I think they would rather cut their own balls off than give the go ahead to rule changes which would help other clubs to break their market stranglehold. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted Tuesday at 15:05 Share Posted Tuesday at 15:05 2 hours ago, r0cafella said: This is cole, Villa who also loathe these rules supporting another member who loathes these rules isn't shocking at all. The wind required is 14 votes to make more equitable rules. The wind is ensuring these rules are not passed and the tribunal confirming that the rules are void. Then it's open season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted Tuesday at 15:18 Share Posted Tuesday at 15:18 11 minutes ago, et tu brute said: The wind is ensuring these rules are not passed and the tribunal confirming that the rules are void. Then it's open season Sounds great on paper I wouldn't be so sure personally. After all, the clubs who aren't in favour of lax financial regulation only have to draw up rules which are lawful and pass them. I've got no doubts this is what they will be attempting to do as we speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted Tuesday at 16:16 Share Posted Tuesday at 16:16 (edited) 58 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Sounds great on paper I wouldn't be so sure personally. After all, the clubs who aren't in favour of lax financial regulation only have to draw up rules which are lawful and pass them. I've got no doubts this is what they will be attempting to do as we speak. We will see on Friday, all you need is 7 clubs to say no and they won't be passed. According to reports a few weeks ago, more clubs were coming on board with regards to APT. If the tribunal state that the current rules are unlawful and the Premier League can't get their desperate attempt to pass new rules, then it's open season until new rules are passed. Man City have played a blinder here. Edited Tuesday at 16:17 by et tu brute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted Tuesday at 16:40 Share Posted Tuesday at 16:40 2 hours ago, SUPERTOON said: Man Utd not be more likely to want to inflate sponsorship now ? Ornstein was on sky yesterday saying they have no money to spend in January due to FFP. I suppose you could have Ineos pump millions into Man U and reduce their tax position, as long as Man U post taxable losses then its a win for Brexit Jim. The issue they have compared to others is that whilst Ratcliffe is part owner of Man U, its not done through Ineos directly so the ability to throw money into the club from his money generating engine is restricted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted Tuesday at 16:55 Share Posted Tuesday at 16:55 The red tops will be against it. These rules mean they will forever have a financial advantage of the likes of us and Villa for players and managers. Their owners are in it to make money. Not spend it. On some level this is a vanity project for PIF. The ends will justify the means. If our club becomes a global brand like Man City or Chelsea, it will be worth more than money to PIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted Tuesday at 23:00 Share Posted Tuesday at 23:00 Pep new contract = Man City getting zero sanction of 115 charges - imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted yesterday at 09:06 Share Posted yesterday at 09:06 10 hours ago, duo said: Pep new contract = Man City getting zero sanction of 115 charges - imo Thats what i was thinkig this morning, City must be confident that they will win this case against the Premier League rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted yesterday at 09:08 Share Posted yesterday at 09:08 1 minute ago, NG32 said: Thats what i was thinkig this morning, City must be confident that they will win this case against the Premier League rules. Rumours are he's minded to stay regardless so this doesn't give any indication of the outcome imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted yesterday at 09:19 Share Posted yesterday at 09:19 10 minutes ago, r0cafella said: Rumours are he's minded to stay regardless so this doesn't give any indication of the outcome imo. Aye, but if the punishment is as bad as predicted there is no chance he manages a team not in the top level of football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted yesterday at 09:36 Share Posted yesterday at 09:36 16 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Aye, but if the punishment is as bad as predicted there is no chance he manages a team not in the top level of football. Who knows maybe this new deal has a break clause allowing him to walk away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted yesterday at 10:03 Share Posted yesterday at 10:03 11 hours ago, duo said: Pep new contract = Man City getting zero sanction of 115 charges - imo It’s only a year. Wasn’t his contract due to end this season? Could just have signed it to minimise speculation. If it was a long term deal I think it would be more consequential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted yesterday at 10:44 Share Posted yesterday at 10:44 1 hour ago, r0cafella said: Who knows maybe this new deal has a break clause allowing him to walk away. https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1859184822003847178 No break clause according to that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted yesterday at 11:20 Share Posted yesterday at 11:20 1 hour ago, The College Dropout said: It’s only a year. Wasn’t his contract due to end this season? Could just have signed it to minimise speculation. If it was a long term deal I think it would be more consequential. 2027 apparently Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted yesterday at 11:24 Share Posted yesterday at 11:24 24 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: https://twitter.com/City_Xtra/status/1859184822003847178 No break clause according to that. If the “ rumours” are correct he has signed for another year with an option of another year. Looking realistically at the 115+ charges we certainly have a final resolution before the start of 25/26 season or more relevant until after the 25/26 PL annual general meeting. We won’t know till probably Feb/March at the earliest the outcome of the initial IC ruling so add in the appeal process and then in a blink of an eye you are almost certainly post the last game of the 24/25 season then I believe that that arbitration is a possibility. It’s too easy to pre judge the outcome but for me even if City are proven guilty of every charge the sanction will be points deduction and fines in 26/27 which of course we believe is the final guaranteed year of his soon to be announced squeaky new contract. You can almost hear it now “ Winning x number of PL titles was wonderful but my greatest achievement was avoiding regulation despite a 40 ( delete and replace with whichever number you feel appropriate) point deduction Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted 23 hours ago Share Posted 23 hours ago 41 minutes ago, Terraloon said: If the “ rumours” are correct he has signed for another year with an option of another year. Looking realistically at the 115+ charges we certainly have a final resolution before the start of 25/26 season or more relevant until after the 25/26 PL annual general meeting. We won’t know till probably Feb/March at the earliest the outcome of the initial IC ruling so add in the appeal process and then in a blink of an eye you are almost certainly post the last game of the 24/25 season then I believe that that arbitration is a possibility. It’s too easy to pre judge the outcome but for me even if City are proven guilty of every charge the sanction will be points deduction and fines in 26/27 which of course we believe is the final guaranteed year of his soon to be announced squeaky new contract. You can almost hear it now “ Winning x number of PL titles was wonderful but my greatest achievement was avoiding regulation despite a 40 ( delete and replace with whichever number you feel appropriate) point deduction I doubt the charges will stick, the PL's profit and sustainability rules were clearly badly drafted and full of holes, and the charges relate to before the amendments were brought in after our takeover to strengthen the disclosure and control over related party transactions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now