Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[toon25]

4 hours ago, andycap said:

Should ban American ownership full stop. They've ruined the league and have too much sway. 

 

American ownership represents a far bigger threat to the game as we knew it than is given air time imo. 

[El Prontonise]

8 minutes ago, toon25 said:

 

American ownership represents a far bigger threat to the game as we knew it than is given air time imo. 

 

Was some article on BBC saying they could own almost every club in England's top 4 leagues in 10 years time.

[Turnbull2000]

The consequences of majority American ownership in the Premier League would be unthinkable. Probably say goodbye to relegation and hello to matches played around the world.

[McDog]

Look, you guys know I'm a yank. Who keeps selling these teams to Americans?

[Heron]

3 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

Didn't Ashley and the Saudis push for PL to release e-mails and/or documents related to the whole "fit and proper" saga right before they gave in and approved it? I remember something really shady like this. Since it got approved, they weren't pressured into releasing the mail/documents anymore. Maybe my memory is bad here, but I remember thinking at the time that we made the takeover happen by trying to force them to reveal something that they absolutely didn't want to, so they would rather let it happen at that point.

 

 

 

Cannot remember exactly tbh mate but pretty sure that folk in Government kinda cut off routes for the PL to block it albeit indirectly as did the PIF with the Bein shitshow and eventually the PL just ran out of ways to weasel themselves out.

 

The same is happening now. They're just a farcical organisation tbh.

[Heron]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

$1bn is a hell of a gesture

I like gestures...

[TheBrownBottle]

10 minutes ago, McDog said:

Look, you guys know I'm a yank. Who keeps selling these teams to Americans?

Once ‘your lot’ discovered British business wankers’ weakness - massive piles of cash - they used their wily Yankee ways to exploit that weakness with massive piles of cash exchanged for our clubs

 

Thats the narrative I’m sticking to  

[huss9]

no matter what the FMV rules, we havent even tested them properly.

we still should have had a rolling annual stadium  and training ground sponsorship for the past  2 seasons.

whether that was £5m or £50m per year, it all would have helped.

 

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

 

Has the PL been ‘embarrassed’ into any decision in the past?  And what would’ve been the outcome of the loss of the CAT case?  It wouldn’t have meant that the takeover ‘had’ to be approved.  They wanted to put the KSA state up as the owners (ultimately MBS) because they knew that piracy would then rule the takeover out.  Remember you don’t need to be convicted of a crime to fail the FPPT - and even pressure from the UK govt (understanding that a PL ruling that the effectively head of state of an allied country) didn’t make the PL wilt man. 

 

It was patently obvious that BeIN dropped its issue the moment that they were paid $1bn by KSA in damages - the takeover went through the day after.  And it wasn’t unreasonable for the PL to block the takeover on piracy grounds - they were having their product stolen.

 

That daft cunt on Twitter claiming victory through the CAT case remains as laughable now as it was then.  

Piracy was actually resolved long before the takeover was complete. BeoutQ had stopped broadcasting months, if not years earlier. BeinQ was being broadcast in the country again, they even had direct BeinQ staff in Saudi Arabia for months leading up to the takeover.

Diplomatic relations had resolved between the 2 countries, with the border even opening up, and compensation was agreed well in advance.

It was everything to do with the CAT case. The Premier League lost their case to disbar evidence on the grounds of it’s sensitivity to the public.

[Stifler]

55 minutes ago, toon25 said:

American ownership represents a far bigger threat to the game as we knew it than is given air time imo. 

This. At the same time as our takeover was being blocked, the American owners in the Premier League tried to gain total control of football in England through project big picture, and then a few months later tried to breakaway to the ESL.

Absolute fuck all gets mentioned about either of those both in the media, and by fans of those clubs.

We are not far away from having a closed Premier League with only 18 teams.

Want to bet that when they go ahead with it, they find reasons to deduct massive amounts of points from certain clubs in the final season that has relegation?

[Erikse]

I start laughing everytime I see the words "project big picture". Ah yeah silly us, we're only against it because we're just not seeing the bigger picture!

 

 

Edited November 22 by Erikse

[McDog]

4 minutes ago, Stifler said:

This. At the same time as our takeover was being blocked, the American owners in the Premier League tried to gain total control of football in England through project big picture, and then a few months later tried to breakaway to the ESL.

Absolute fuck all gets mentioned about either of those both in the media, and by fans of those clubs.

We are not far away from having a closed Premier League with only 18 teams.

Want to bet that when they go ahead with it, they find reasons to deduct massive amounts of points from certain clubs in the final season that has relegation?

 

 

The EPL rushed in a breakneck speed to curtail Newcastle did they not? Government regulation has been bandied about for a while, why wouldn't the British government pass some oversight committee to ensure the English Pyramid stays intact?

 

 

[andycap]

Since liverpools owners got in the hot seat the league has changed so much for the worse. 

None of them wanna spend big so set out to stop other clubs from out spending them and showing up there real intent to spend the least amount without having to worry about ambitious owners having a go. That'll be why they get the numbers so quickly for rule changes and stuff like a modern day mafia. 

[Rod]

1 hour ago, Heron said:

Cannot remember exactly tbh mate but pretty sure that folk in Government kinda cut off routes for the PL to block it albeit indirectly as did the PIF with the Bein shitshow and eventually the PL just ran out of ways to weasel themselves out.

 

The same is happening now. They're just a farcical organisation tbh.

We were taken over 7th October, the Premier League changed the rules 14th October.  ANY decent lawyer would take the Premier League committee/rulers to the cleaners.  Only me and Manor Park called it at the time.

[Rod]

5 minutes ago, Rod said:

We were taken over 7th October, the Premier League changed the rules 14th October.  ANY decent lawyer would take the Premier League committee/rulers to the cleaners.  Only me and Manor Park called it at the time.

Thanks Heron.

[Jackie Broon]

14 minutes ago, Rod said:

We were taken over 7th October, the Premier League changed the rules 14th October.  ANY decent lawyer would take the Premier League committee/rulers to the cleaners.  Only me and Manor Park called it at the time.

 

Except the tribunal in Man City's case considered that point and concluded that it was legitimate for the PL to change the rules in response to our takeover: 

 

187. We accept that the acquisition of Newcastle United by an investment group led by the Saudi Arabian public investment fund on 7 October 2021 was the catalyst for the consultation process leading up to the APT Rules which led to the setting up of FCAG on 21 October, and the imposition of a moratorium on APTs agreed at the shareholders’ meeting on 11 November 2021. The consultation process ran from 21 October to mid-December 2021, as set out at [27-47] above.

 

188. We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any club that might use APTs. REDACTED was called to give evidence by the PL and was cross-examined. Although his email dated 12 October 2021 was said by counsel on behalf of MCFC in closing submissions to be evidence that the APT Rules were targeted at certain clubs, in particular, those in “the Gulf region”, it was clear from his evidence that it was not so targeted save in the sense that at the time the email was sent there was concern that Newcastle United might be about to enter into APTs with entities in Saudi Arabia. REDACTED considered that “any club that benefits from a transaction not at fair market value should be subject to the same rules, just as we would expect that.” He explained that “if, for example, we were talking about a takeover of another club by an American consortium who had links to lots of American companies” he would have expressed the same concerns. He said that “there had been concern for a number of years about related party transactions, associated party transactions taking place at above market value”. He explained that “the takeover of Newcastle United heightened those concerns again and encouraged the clubs to seek action.” We were satisfied that, whilst it was the takeover of Newcastle United which caused him to send his email when he did, ’s concern related to any club that might use APTs.

 

189. In conclusion, we find that there was a sufficient evidential basis for the PL and the clubs to conclude that the ex post PSR rules were ineffective in controlling APTs, and that it was necessary to move to ex ante regime. This was the objective of the APT Rules (and later the Amended APT Rules).

 

 

Edited November 23 by Jackie Broon

[Rod]

4 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Except the tribunal in Man City's case considered that point and concluded that it was legitimate for the PL to change the rules: 

 

187. We accept that the acquisition of Newcastle United by an investment group led by 53 FOR DISCLOSURE TO MEMBER CLUBS AND THE PUBLIC the Saudi Arabian public investment fund on 7 October 2021 was the catalyst for the consultation process leading up to the APT Rules which led to the setting up of FCAG on 21 October, and the imposition of a moratorium on APTs agreed at the shareholders’ meeting on 11 November 2021. The consultation process ran from 21 October to mid-December 2021, as set out at [27-47] above.

 

188. We do not, however, find that the APT Rules were targeted specifically at clubs owned by companies in the Gulf region but were rather intended to apply to any club that might use APTs. REDACTED was called to give evidence by the PL and was cross-examined. Although his email dated 12 October 2021 was said by counsel on behalf of MCFC in closing submissions to be evidence that the APT Rules were targeted at certain clubs, in particular, those in “the Gulf region”, it was clear from his evidence that it was not so targeted save in the sense that at the time the email was sent there was concern that Newcastle United might be about to enter into APTs with entities in Saudi Arabia. REDACTED considered that “any club that benefits from a transaction not at fair market value should be subject to the same rules, just as we would expect that.” He explained that “if, for example, we were talking about a takeover of another club by an American consortium who had links to lots of American companies” he would have expressed the same concerns. He said that “there had been concern for a number of years about related party transactions, associated party transactions taking place at above market value”. He explained that “the takeover of Newcastle United heightened those concerns again and encouraged the clubs to seek action.” We were satisfied that, whilst it was the takeover of Newcastle United which caused him to send his email when he did, ’s concern related to any club that might use APTs.

 

189. In conclusion, we find that there was a sufficient evidential basis for the PL and the clubs to conclude that the ex post PSR rules were ineffective in controlling APTs, and that it was necessary to move to ex ante regime. This was the objective of the APT Rules (and later the Amended APT Rules).

All I'm reading there is "corruption".  It's so obvious.  We should make a stand and follow the example of Man City.  Take these corrupt feckers down.

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, Rod said:

All I'm reading there is "corruption".  It's so obvious.  We should make a stand and follow the example of Man City.  Take these corrupt feckers down.

 

What you're reading is three senior judges, including a knight and a lord, saying that it was legitimate.

 

I don't agree with the approach of the PL but the argument that it was corrupt for them to respond to our takeover by tightening the rules around related party transactions has already been had and lost.

[Rod]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

What you're reading is three senior judges, including a knight and a lord, saying that it was legitimate.

 

I don't agree with the approach of the PL but the argument that it was corrupt for them to respond to our takeover by tightening the rules around related party transactions has already been had and lost.

Disagree.

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, Rod said:

Disagree.

[Rod]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

Jackie, we will take these "corrupt" feckers down.  I couldn't give a shit if they are Lords or whatever.  Corruption is corruption no matter your upbringing.

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Rod said:

Jackie, we will take these "corrupt" feckers down.  I couldn't give a shit if they are Lords or whatever.  Corruption is corruption no matter your upbringing.

 

I'm sure you'll beat 'em with experience Rod.

[Slim]

4 hours ago, Stifler said:

I refuse to believe this. The Premier League lost the challenge on having evidence that they did not want used or publicised from being shown the Friday before. This also meant that they were likely to lose the CAT case regardless of the BeinQ piracy case, and that the takeover would have to be approved.

They fast tracked the approval so that the evidence was not shown in court, and therefor not released to the public, then made a big song and dance about everything else that it was supposedly about. 

You might refuse to believe it but the CAT case meant fuck all in the grand scheme. 

 

Know sounds exciting that some evidence might come out but they were fucking pirating the premier league! 

 

They paid around US$500 million then then take over got approved next few days.

 

 

[Erikse]

8 minutes ago, Rod said:

Jackie, we will take these "corrupt" feckers down.  I couldn't give a shit if they are Lords or whatever.  Corruption is corruption no matter your upbringing.

 

I know a lawyer. He supports Ipswich though, so not sure he will be bothered enough.

[TheBrownBottle]

6 hours ago, Stifler said:

Piracy was actually resolved long before the takeover was complete. BeoutQ had stopped broadcasting months, if not years earlier. BeinQ was being broadcast in the country again, they even had direct BeinQ staff in Saudi Arabia for months leading up to the takeover.

Diplomatic relations had resolved between the 2 countries, with the border even opening up, and compensation was agreed well in advance.

It was everything to do with the CAT case. The Premier League lost their case to disbar evidence on the grounds of it’s sensitivity to the public.

It wasn’t resolved in terms of losses - which is what the $1bn was about.  If someone has stolen from you, you don’t say afterwards ‘hey, if you’re not stealing from me anymore no harm no foul’.  That $1bn was settlement