Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Joelinton7]

Yawn 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

16 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

And who sets the price, and what appeals are allowed if the price doesn't reflect the value to the owning party?

 

 

edit: So it's an auction? Was that what happened in the Chelsea case?

 

 

 

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell.  But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL.  So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.  

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Never going to happen in a million years man 

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will.  It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance. 

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will.  It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance. 

Got as much chance of it happening as Sunderland having a sell out midweek crowd 

[Jonas]

Its like the opposite of the game monopoly.

In that game you can buy a ton of pretend things with pretend money that has no value in the real world, you can only pretend to be rich.

Whereas with football now you can have as much real life actual money that in any other walk of life has face-value value and you can buy anything you like but in the game of football its meaningless and worth nothing and you have to pretend to be poor.

 

[Stifler]

I told you all about this last week.

 

The amendment still hasn’t passed review in the House of Commons, they started debating amendments yesterday, but didn’t get past what the bill should be titled as.

Anyway, one of the most prominent Lords speaking in the House of Lords and debating it, is the Lord of Whitley Bay, who is a Newcastle United fan.

I told you all that I had emailed him, and emailed another Lord about this amendment, but all I got was ridicule.

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Stifler

[McDog]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell.  But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL.  So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.  

So they promote someone to take their place and they play in non-league? That is absurd.

 

[Stifler]

It would really even force a sale per se. All it would mean is that control is handed from PIF to a private equity firm, like Man City is.

Man City would only fall foul of this rule because a director has a role within the Abi Dhabi government, if he was either removed as director, or his role, then they would comply.

 

All of this is assuming that this amendment passes. Just 1 Lord or Baroness objecting to it within the House of Lords will be enough to block it, and then it’s still got to go to the House of Commons to pass there as well.

The article even says it is very unlikely to pass, and it’s just a Lord who is a Liverpool fan pushing his luck.

I was watching them talk about this bill last night, and they were arguing over what it should be titled, and then some Lords and even Karen Brady reminded everyone that some aspects could lead to litigation, and also wouldn’t be in compliance with UEFA, and FIFA laws. This was a discussion over the title of the bill, and the inclusion of the word ‘sustainable’.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, McDog said:

So they promote someone to take their place and they play in non-league? That is absurd.

 

If it happened we wouldn't be able to play at any level.  TBF removing clubs from the football league isn't a new thing.

 

It isn't going to happen, though.  Not worth worrying about, as fun as hypotheticals can be.

[Sima]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

I told you all about this last week.

 

The amendment still hasn’t passed review in the House of Commons, they started debating amendments yesterday, but didn’t get past what the bill should be titled as.

Anyway, one of the most prominent Lords speaking in the House of Lords and debating it, is the Lord of Whitley Bay, who is a Newcastle United fan.

I told you all that I had emailed him, and emailed another Lord about this amendment, but all I got was ridicule.

 

 

 

Not very becoming of a lord to ridicule you.

 

The class divide is real.

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, Sima said:

Not very becoming of a lord to ridicule you.

 

The class divide is real.

Baron Parkinson is a Tory bastard, so not that shocking  

[McDog]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If it happened we wouldn't be able to play at any level.  TBF removing clubs from the football league isn't a new thing.

 

It isn't going to happen, though.  Not worth worrying about, as fun as hypotheticals can be.

 

 

Thank you by the way for the education. Sorry for so many questions, I'm learning. So it isn't an EPL registration, it is a registration to play anywhere in England at any level of the pyramid?

[Stifler]

16 minutes ago, McDog said:

Thank you by the way for the education. Sorry for so many questions, I'm learning. So it isn't an EPL registration, it is a registration to play anywhere in England at any level of the pyramid?

They seem to be indicating that it would apply to the top 5 leagues in England only.

 

It won’t happen though. In the same proposed amendment, it forbids anyone from government being an owner and/or a board member of a club, with no distinction between foreign governments, and our own. This means that Karen Brady would have to choose between her daytime job at West Ham, or her role within the House of Lords. She alone obviously isn’t going to vote for it, and she would be supported by others who would see it as overreach.

[McDog]

Just now, Stifler said:

They seem to be indicating that it would apply to the top 5 leagues in England only.

 

It won’t happen though. In the same proposed amendment, it forbids anyone from government being an owner and/or a board member of a club, with no distinction between foreign governments, and our own. This means that Karen Brady would have to choose between her daytime job at West Ham, or her role within the House of Lords. She alone obviously isn’t going to vote for it, and she would be supported by others who would see it as overreach.

 

 

Thanks Stifler. Sounds crazy.

[TheBrownBottle]

33 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Thank you by the way for the education. Sorry for so many questions, I'm learning. So it isn't an EPL registration, it is a registration to play anywhere in England at any level of the pyramid?

No bother at all mate  - outside the top five tiers of English football is effectively where the semi-pros and amateurs sit (though the fifth tier is a mix of professional and semi-pro).  Because tier six down is semi-pro and amateur, and they're concerned about ownership and governance, I can't imagine it would be applied to every level of the pyramid.

 

The Lords can't block but only delay bills - so the Commons can re-present the Bill either untouched or with any amendments suggested by the Lords which have been recommended.  This is regular in Parliament - some of the lords are former Law Lords (judges - the HoL used to be the highest court in the country until the UK Supreme Court was created in 2009).  And others are ex-judges and lawyers who have significant careers and expertise in law.  So the often re-draft proposed Bills and send them back to the Commons with their suggested changes.  Often these are the result of knowledge of legislation and practice.  While I'd like to see the Lords abolished, this is a function which would be difficult to replace.

 

The issue comes when you get suggested amendments like the ones in this Bill, which oversteps review and redraft and becomes an effective change of policy.  At that point, these amendments are usually rejected (to get through the Commons, the Bill would likely need govt support).  I can't see the govt supporting these amendments.

 

This happens regularly, but usually doesn't get much visibility as it doesn't impact the back pages of the newspapers.  Because it relates to football, it has gained more visibility.