Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Heron]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool

well played.

[Heron]

Surely the FA step in if the PL don't have their house in order?

 

Quick win would be sacking Masters and those culpable for members losing faith in the current set up. Employing a new head and installing some sort of control measure whilst the PL got its act together one would assume.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 22:52 by Heron

[midds]

1 minute ago, Heron said:

well played.

It was a flippant answer but I honestly don' think it's that far from the truth. The power and influence those 3 clubs seem to hold is ridiculous

[Jackie Broon]

20 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I’m convinced the vote will pass on Friday.  The premier league have been working with clubs to find rules that they are happy with.  The deferral of the interest free loans appears so obviously unlawful but it will be there to win votes.  Everton, for example ,with that rule that suits them may vote for the rule when otherwise they would not.  The whole process just seems flawed.  

 

There does not appear to be any “punishment” for having unlawful rules.  The premier league has had them for what?  18 months?  If the vote passes everyone will have to conform to the new rules lawful or not.  Man City will start another case.  It will take a year.  Let’s say they say it is unlawful again, then what?  Rinse and repeat?  This appears to be the premier leagues tactics, get rules in place that 16 clubs agree with whether they are lawful or not.

 

The punishment hasn't been determined yet, the PL have essentially been found guilty but haven't had their sentencing hearing yet.

 

There's a good chance that, in addition to Man City's costs for the points the PL lost on, they will end up having to pay Man City for the loss of income from the sponsorships they delayed and/or blocked with unlawful rules. That will be tens of millions, at least. That could also possibly lead to claims for any other deals they have blocked or required to be reduced since 2021.

[Heron]

Ultimately - this was all a ploy from the pre-existing elite to stop Newcastle United dead in its tracks when seemingly there was political pressure to accept our takeover from Saudi owners.

 

It's minging really.

 

The Premier League is now being hung out to dry because of its incompetent self-governance and greed and the can is kicked so far down the road by government and governing bodies that ultimately it has (or should have) been a ticking time bomb for the PL who've failed to get themselves in order.

 

The "pre-existing elite" absolutely rule the roost and it's (the PL) been proven to not only be a negligent, greedy and inept organisation but a corrupt one too.

 

There won't be any back tracking of pressure to receive Saudi money. However, the FA should and can step in (as I understand) to either remove or entirely rebuild the Premier League as an organisation that is fit for purpose.

 

For me it has to be the former, with any new "marketing" of the league. If they want to protect investment from sponsors and continue the whole "best league in the world" spiel.

 

Ultimately, it has to be competitive though for that to remain - and so those clubs need brought into check to realise they cannot have a closed shop.

[TRon]

12 hours ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

I’m convinced the vote will pass on Friday.  The premier league have been working with clubs to find rules that they are happy with.  The deferral of the interest free loans appears so obviously unlawful but it will be there to win votes.  Everton, for example ,with that rule that suits them may vote for the rule when otherwise they would not.  The whole process just seems flawed.  

 

There does not appear to be any “punishment” for having unlawful rules.  The premier league has had them for what?  18 months?  If the vote passes everyone will have to conform to the new rules lawful or not.  Man City will start another case.  It will take a year.  Let’s say they say it is unlawful again, then what?  Rinse and repeat?  This appears to be the premier leagues tactics, get rules in place that 16 clubs agree with whether they are lawful or not.

 

The problem with dragging out these legal battles and repeatedly kicking the can down the road, is that legal battles cost money, and ultimately every club has to pay for them. £48m in legal fees at the last count, is that just a drop in the ocean for the lesser lights?

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

52 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

The problem with dragging out these legal battles and repeatedly kicking the can down the road, is that legal battles cost money, and ultimately every club has to pay for them. £48m in legal fees at the last count, is that just a drop in the ocean for the lesser lights?

 

I agree.  Some clubs hopefully will agree and vote against the new rules until after the tribunal.  The premier league board do not seem to agree.  I guess it's not their money that is being spent.  

[timeEd32]

Quote

It is understood that Wolverhampton Wanderers and Everton, who had voted against tougher APT rules a year ago, are now supporting the Premier League. That could mean efforts by City, backed by Aston Villa, to block the vote will fall just short of the seven clubs necessary to veto it.

 

The vote is believed to be on a knife-edge, with senior figures frantically lobbying before the shareholders’ meeting in London. Villa had backed City in calling for the vote to be postponed.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/39f2ff28-61ca-42f3-be11-4ae63bb01f20?shareToken=851d3dac2c308a167149012f6d5ae46b

 

You can just imagine the backroom dealing going on right now. As the article says, it almost doesn't matter given City's combativeness and the pending tribunal ruling.

[Scoot]

16 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/39f2ff28-61ca-42f3-be11-4ae63bb01f20?shareToken=851d3dac2c308a167149012f6d5ae46b

 

You can just imagine the backroom dealing going on right now. As the article says, it almost doesn't matter given City's combativeness and the pending tribunal ruling.

 

Was going to say, what on earth is the point anyway? If the tribunal rule in City's favour again in a couple if weeks, they're back to square 1. Proper weird situation.

[Jackie Broon]

I don't think there's much chance of it not being voted through. Half of the PL have shareholder loans of more than £30m, that includes otherwise anti-PSR clubs Everton, Leicester and Chelsea.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

15 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

Was going to say, what on earth is the point anyway? If the tribunal rule in City's favour again in a couple if weeks, they're back to square 1. Proper weird situation.

 

Because then there will be new rules that the tribunal have not declared unlawful.  So they will apply.  Man City will have to start another case to have these new rules also declared unlawful.

 

The tribunal have ruled that loans must be included.  They have not ruled whether giving a grace period for the loans is unlawful.

 

 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

18 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

I don't think there's much chance of it not being voted through

 

I agree 

 

You have the premier league deliberately writing the rules with the priority being votes not legality.

 

 

[Heron]

Sorry but how can a potentially illegal solution be voted through?

(I may be missing something fairly important here... )

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Heron

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, Heron said:

Sorry but how can a potentially illegal solution be voted through?

(I may be missing something fairly important here... )

 

 

 

They are trying to head off the tribunal ruling as they know it will be open season if the current rules are deemed unlawful. If it is passed tomorrow (I still think it will be pulled tomorrow like last time), and the tribunal do state the rules were unlawful, then Man City will be straight in appeal again and I think this time will be joined by the other clubs against.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Heron said:

Sorry but how can a potentially illegal solution be voted through?

 

The same way it did the first time.  I see it like:

 

1. the premier league and its lawyers wrote the original rules.  The rules included that loan interest would not be included.  

2. Man City disagreed and took them to a tribunal

3. the tribunal agreed and said the rules were unlawfaul

4. The premier league now writes rules that say loan interest will be included after a grace period.  Their lawyers will argue that this is lawful somehow.

5. Man City will take them to a tribunal again and say loan interest even for a grace period is unlawful

6. logically I would think Man City would win.  If something is unlawful then surely it is unlawful for a grace period.

 

By the premier league putting the grace period in it will win votes.  Everton are being bought out so their situation will change by the time the grace period is over.

 

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, Heron said:

Sorry but how can a potentially illegal solution be voted through?

(I may be missing something fairly important here... )

 

 

 

 

Because the the only alternatives are too unpalatable to the clubs who hold the power.

 

Their only lawful options seem to be to apply FMV to shareholder loans retrospectively over the current three year PSR cycle (which would screw the likes of Chelsea and Everton) or wipe the PSR slate clean and start again. But the majority of clubs just won't accept either of those options.

 

 

 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[Heron]

I just don't get how an organisation can pass an illegal ruling anyways. I'm trying to think of an equivalent to emphasise it but in all honesty struggling.

 

Like if it is well known (as this is) then surely The FA (or whoever) say "You cannot pass this ruling" and thus the vote is voided/not even undertaken?

 

Apologies in advance if I am being a bit thick.

[Jackie Broon]

5 minutes ago, Heron said:

I just don't get how an organisation can pass an illegal ruling anyways. I'm trying to think of an equivalent to emphasise it but in all honesty struggling.

 

Like if it is well known (as this is) then surely The FA (or whoever) say "You cannot pass this ruling" and thus the vote is voided/not even undertaken?

 

Apologies in advance if I am being a bit thick.

 

Stuff like that happens all of the time, for example council committees going against professional advice, that's how people with power often act.

[Heron]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Stuff like that happens all of the time, for example council committees going against professional advice, that's how people with power often act.

Perhaps I am just very naive

[Wolfcastle]

Would have saved me and a lot fans all around the country a lot of bother, money and time if when turning to our parents after a miserable loss in the old 2nd Division and asked if we'd ever be a top team (like the top teams of the day that are also the top teams of today (well i never)) and been told "no, the top teams wouldn't like it, so its outlawed"

 

[NG32]

I cant imagine why any one would vote for the status quo, other than the so called and self appointed "top 6".   Its literally accepting you will  never challenge them and if you did manage to build a decent side, within a season or two your best playing assets will be stripped from your club. 

 

 

[TRon]

20 minutes ago, Heron said:

Perhaps I am just very naive

 

 

Hopefully a bit less naive since the heady days of our takeover.

 

Then: 

 

Now:

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, NG32 said:

I cant imagine why any one would vote for the status quo, other than the so called and self appointed "top 6".   Its literally accepting you will  never challenge them and if you did manage to build a decent side, within a season or two your best playing assets will be stripped from your club. 

 

 

 

Because the status quo also helps to keep the gap between the mid-table PL team and the promoted team growing ever wider, and helps to keep £100m a season rolling in for just passing go.

[timeEd32]

52 minutes ago, NG32 said:

I cant imagine why any one would vote for the status quo, other than the so called and self appointed "top 6".   Its literally accepting you will  never challenge them and if you did manage to build a decent side, within a season or two your best playing assets will be stripped from your club. 

 

 

 

The sad fact is that it is far more important to be in the Premier League than to win it.

[MagMal]

20 hours ago, Heron said:

Surely the FA step in if the PL don't have their house in order?

 

Quick win would be sacking Masters and those culpable for members losing faith in the current set up. Employing a new head and installing some sort of control measure whilst the PL got its act together one would assume.

 

 

 

Masters will have plenty of dirt on the cartel owners, they will ride this to the bottom together