et tu brute Posted Saturday at 05:13 Share Posted Saturday at 05:13 (edited) 4 hours 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. It's an arbitration tribunal set up by the Premier League within their rules. With one nomination from the Premier League, one for City and a joint agreement by both for the 3rd (otherwise appointed by the FA if no agreement). We are still waiting for the tribunal's written explanation, to confirm if the rules in their entirety are unlawful. The rules voted for today could be quickly thrown out if that explanation states unlawful, otherwise they will remain if the tribunal decides it is lawful (unlikely in my opinion, but then again I though the vote would have been pulled yesterday). I honestly think this has been rushed through to attempt to stop open season when/if the tribunal decision comes through in agreement with City's argument. This gives the Premier League time to further kick the can down the road (as we know they love to do). I agree that it is corrupt and totally unacceptable how another club (or 16 in this case) can basically stop an individual club from running and investing in its own business. People say, but it's a football club and needs to be governed. This is correct in terms of the rules of the game and what happens on the pitch, but football clubs (like it or not) are first and foremost businesses and shouldn't have their investment curtailed by another club (business). I wish either us or City (or the actual sponsor) would say no I'm not accepting your corrupt process and take it to the competition/external courts as the whole thing would be blown apart. Premier League may attempt to throw the clubs out, but I'm quite sure the government would get seriously involved then (as they threatened during the Super League). Hopefully we will get the tribunal explanation promptly and see what happens with that. The PSR and APT rules are both totally anti competitive and would not be allowed in any other industry. Edited Saturday at 05:30 by et tu brute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledGeordie Posted Saturday at 09:49 Share Posted Saturday at 09:49 I’m actually getting to the point where I’m starting to support anyone vs the cartel top 6 clubs minus City. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted Saturday at 10:09 Share Posted Saturday at 10:09 (edited) 4 hours ago, et tu brute said: I honestly think this has been rushed through to attempt to stop open season when/if the tribunal decision comes through in agreement with City's argument. This gives the Premier League time to further kick the can down the road (as we know they love to do). Kick the can down the road as in if the tribunal favour City again, it'll bring another legal challenge from them and then everyone who wants to benefit from APT's will have to further wait? Edited Saturday at 10:10 by Scoot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted Saturday at 10:15 Share Posted Saturday at 10:15 Just now, Scoot said: Kick the can down the road as in if the tribunal favour City again, it'll bring another legal challenge and then everyone who wants to benefit from APT's will have to further wait? Yeah the Premier League will go back stating that they have changed the rules and City will argue that the rules are still unlawful. It's the reason why the premier league didn't wait for the tribunal clarification Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Prontonise Posted Saturday at 10:15 Share Posted Saturday at 10:15 The sooner the whole of PL, CL etc crashes and burns the better. Sick of hearing about FFP etc when it's related to income, football has a spending issue not an income one. I actually detest the sport nowadays. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted Saturday at 10:56 Share Posted Saturday at 10:56 43 minutes ago, Scoot said: Kick the can down the road as in if the tribunal favour City again, it'll bring another legal challenge from them and then everyone who wants to benefit from APT's will have to further wait? It depends on the tribunal's final determination, they might well confirm that the APT rules and even PSR as a whole is void from 2021 until there are lawful rules in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted Saturday at 11:54 Share Posted Saturday at 11:54 (edited) 1 hour ago, El Prontonise said: The sooner the whole of PL, CL etc crashes and burns the better. Sick of hearing about FFP etc when it's related to income, football has a spending issue not an income one. I actually detest the sport nowadays. This is absolutely it. I'm not saying it's the answer but capping salaries and transfer fees is probably closer to balancing the playing field than the existing model but even that has its issues. Sadly, it's the way of the world but how agents and footballers themselves make so much money and yet nurses etc. Get paid a pittance by comparison is just an absolute microcosm of what a bizarre species we are. Edited Saturday at 11:54 by Heron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted Saturday at 12:27 Share Posted Saturday at 12:27 If this is to be believed the rules were basically written in a way to win Everton's vote. https://x.com/CitizenSuburbia/status/1859995262074368353 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Saturday at 12:44 Share Posted Saturday at 12:44 17 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: If this is to be believed the rules were basically written in a way to win Everton's vote. https://x.com/CitizenSuburbia/status/1859995262074368353 Pure scum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted Saturday at 12:58 Share Posted Saturday at 12:58 There will be plenty of deals being done in exchange for votes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted Saturday at 13:40 Share Posted Saturday at 13:40 I know it's a wild suggestion but perhaps the PL could check the legality of the rules before they actually introduce them? Like get the rules signed off by a team of judges as being valid prior to presenting them to be voted upon? Crazy, I know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted Saturday at 13:45 Share Posted Saturday at 13:45 4 minutes ago, midds said: I know it's a wild suggestion but perhaps the PL could check the legality of the rules before they actually introduce them? Like get the rules signed off by a team of judges as being valid prior to presenting them to be voted upon? Crazy, I know Exactly- just makes me think the FA and/or whoever else are entirely inept and/or corrupt too. Doesn't come as a surprise mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted Saturday at 13:48 Share Posted Saturday at 13:48 This just seems like it's going to purposely rumble on for years with no clear answer as to what the fuck is allowed and not allowed. All thos effort just to try and stop us eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted Saturday at 18:46 Share Posted Saturday at 18:46 8 hours ago, El Prontonise said: The sooner the whole of PL, CL etc crashes and burns the better. Sick of hearing about FFP etc when it's related to income, football has a spending issue not an income one. I actually detest the sport nowadays. Just the management of the sport for me. I still love the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Saturday at 19:05 Share Posted Saturday at 19:05 5 hours ago, Heron said: Exactly- just makes me think the FA and/or whoever else are entirely inept and/or corrupt too. Doesn't come as a surprise mind They are though. They stood back and did fuck all whilst Liverpool, and Man Utd teams up with Rick Parry to steal football. They stood back when the top 6 wanted to breakaway with the ESL and let the Premier League give them the punishments the clubs decided upon. They never paid the money owed to grassroots football teams, and let the likes of Mars, and McDonalds create facilities with their own money instead. They then tried to use giving football to grassroots football as a reason to sell Wembley. They had Southgate as a manager for 8 years, and clearly had no succession plan for his replacement, nor did they have any succession plans for any of his predecessors. They have stood by and let the standard of referee’s get to a laughable level. They have no pathway to train new coaches without it being very few select individuals to pay obscene amounts of money to do so. They are like that sketch in the Mike Bassett movie, where they sit in an office, ignoring the manager, and just cashing in the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Saturday at 19:59 Share Posted Saturday at 19:59 52 minutes ago, Stifler said: They are though. They stood back and did fuck all whilst Liverpool, and Man Utd teams up with Rick Parry to steal football. They stood back when the top 6 wanted to breakaway with the ESL and let the Premier League give them the punishments the clubs decided upon. They never paid the money owed to grassroots football teams, and let the likes of Mars, and McDonalds create facilities with their own money instead. They then tried to use giving football to grassroots football as a reason to sell Wembley. They had Southgate as a manager for 8 years, and clearly had no succession plan for his replacement, nor did they have any succession plans for any of his predecessors. They have stood by and let the standard of referee’s get to a laughable level. They have no pathway to train new coaches without it being very few select individuals to pay obscene amounts of money to do so. They are like that sketch in the Mike Bassett movie, where they sit in an office, ignoring the manager, and just cashing in the money. Yep. They actively backed and put their name to the Premiership breakaway from the Football League, claiming it was for the good of the national team. The whole thing was just about the greed of the ‘Big Five’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted Saturday at 20:19 Share Posted Saturday at 20:19 Didn't care about the profit and sustainability of smaller clubs when they carved the PL up to keep the gate reciepts from them and subsequently success with it. In the 10years prior we had or would have had Watford, Southampton, Ipswich, QPR, Norwich (twice), Oxford, Luton, Forest, Wimbledon and Coventry in Europe. Couldn't help but notice how that dramatically changed in the PL era, and is obviousl over forever now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted Saturday at 21:56 Share Posted Saturday at 21:56 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted Saturday at 22:02 Share Posted Saturday at 22:02 Lord Bassam is a Liverpool fan. Enough said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Saturday at 22:09 Share Posted Saturday at 22:09 12 minutes ago, LFEE said: I’m completely comfortable with the notion of nation states not being able to own football clubs tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Saturday at 22:10 Share Posted Saturday at 22:10 (edited) They’d just spin NUFC outside of PIF. Man City is ran in a similar manner, where officially it’s not state owned. Edited Saturday at 22:11 by Stifler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Saturday at 22:14 Share Posted Saturday at 22:14 2 minutes ago, Stifler said: They’d just spin NUFC outside of PIF. Man City is ran in a similar manner, where officially it’s not state owned. Sovereign wealth funds are included in the proposed amendment. Man City are run by the vice president of Abu Dhabi Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Saturday at 22:18 Share Posted Saturday at 22:18 2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Sovereign wealth funds are included in the proposed amendment. Man City are run by the vice president of Abu Dhabi Man City are technically owned by a private investment group, where as we are owned by a sovereign wealth fund. We will end up being owned in a similar manner to Man City. Man City will just change their directors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted Saturday at 22:19 Share Posted Saturday at 22:19 3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Sovereign wealth funds are included in the proposed amendment. Man City are run by the vice president of Abu Dhabi I think that's what Stiffy is getting at, we'd end up shifting the ownership to an individual or a group outside of PIF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Saturday at 22:19 Share Posted Saturday at 22:19 1 minute ago, Stifler said: Man City are technically owned by a private investment group, where as we are owned by a sovereign wealth fund. We will end up being owned in a similar manner to Man City. Man City will just change their directors. Just now, Dr.Spaceman said: I think that's what Stiffy is getting at, we'd end up shifting the ownership to an individual or a group outside of PIF Got it - makes sense 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