Shearergol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, On the Grid said: Going galactico would suggest 120m and 400kpw on a RW though? Yeah, I think he’s somewhere in between the two tbf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Having to dodge around PSR by selling unwillingly is something a club in our situation shouldn’t be forced to do. And ultimately being unable to spend for 3 transfer windows (Hall blah blah blah) ultimately fucks over any club with ambition.  I was all for not on about going mental and buying all the star players, but when a club has solid monetary grounding, and zero debt, then clearly these APT rules are just bullshit. They couldn’t care a single jot when FCB wasn’t putting a penny in for stifling commercial revenue from APT, but as soon as the opportunity came along to improve with this, they fucked us in the arse.  Fuck Masters. Fuck all the other fucking clubs who signed up to this in the league. Do the inflated commercial deals and spend what you want lads as far as I’m concerned. Go for it. Fuck being nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycap Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Fuck them all blitz them with crazy spends. Watch the scouse manc cockney fuckers twist then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 If this is god for us, i really hope we are aggressive in getting in new sponsors and money ready for the summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decky Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, SUPERTOON said: If this is god for us, i really hope we are aggressive in getting in new sponsors and money ready for the summer.  Get it done asap, you wouldn't know what shite those corrupt cunts will try and pull soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, On the Grid said: Going galactico would suggest 120m and 400kpw on a RW though?  Just being allowed if we wanted is all we want.. but the corrupt don't want us to have that ability. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I wonder if we even tried to submit huge sponsorship deals, if not it may be tricky to seek compensation. The Anderson & Minteh deals though... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hudson Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 16 minutes ago, manorpark said: Â If we have the evidence that between 2021 and November 2024 our income (Turnover/Revenue) was restricted by the established "void" APT rules, by reducing our sponsorship over those years, then we can sue to get those deals approved - thus vastly increasing our future commercial income. Â That will enable us to spend much more in the future. Not true, we will be suing the prem for lost revenue on the difference between what we where allowed to sign it at. Â Say Noon wanted to pay us ÂŁ100m but the prem said we could only take ÂŁ60m. We sue the prem for the lost revenue of ÂŁ40m. Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 It's not really about going on a massive spending spree, it's about being able to show a bit of ambition without having to sell key players or promising youngsters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishops Finger Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 20 minutes ago, frankpingel said: Should it not be on the yellow breaking news banner? I'd have thought so. Surely it'll be all over the back pages so they'll have to discuss it later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 It's about competing in Europe for me. When you get there you feel massively hamstrung under the current rules Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 45 minutes ago, Scoot said:  As I thought. As clear as mud... But if they get a huge sponsorship income then they’d still be able to spend and still comply with uefa rules surely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankpingel Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Bishops Finger said: Surely it'll be all over the back pages so they'll have to discuss it later It's been on twice that I've seen but they've yet to make detailed comment. Probably some more clued up employees busy in the background developing the story. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristov Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Is ManCity agenda behind this because of the 155 impending charges? because im confused as to why a team with 6 premier league trophies in last 7 years would be bothered about the rules which don't really effect them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, gdm said: But if they get a huge sponsorship income then they’d still be able to spend and still comply with uefa rules surely  I've no idea but it must count towards legitimate income, absolutely no reason why other rich owners can't do the same though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 23 minutes ago, Likelylad said: The irony is that most of us don't really even want to go full gallactico, we just want to be able to improve the bloody first team over 3 transfer windows. We're what? A top GK, RW and CB away from being a really really top side. I'd be quite happy just doing what we were doing.  Any top PL club could have signed Isak, Bruno, Botman, Gordon...it's not like we put £120m and £500k/week on the table to blow everyone else out of the water.  Now we can't even do that, without selling one of those players to one of the clubs we're trying to overtake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I must admit I used to be firmly in the 'build it organically, build it from the bottom up, let's not buy success immediately, let's make it sustainable and grow the club sensibly' camp but not now. The rules that have been introduced purely to actively and deliberately stop my club from challenging have worn me down and I no longer subscribe to that way of thinking. The obvious unfairness and timing of these new bullshit and illegal rules brought in to prevent us specifically from challenging the elites have changed my mind.  I now hope we spend a few billion quid before 2030, fuck it. I now want us to blow the corrupt, sly and pernicious cunts out of the water. Drop half a bill in the summer spending our own sponsorship money, couldn't give a single fuck what any other fans thinks, they hate us anyway so what difference will it make. Now firmly in the 'drop a financial bomb on the PL' to rattle as many cages as humanly possible. No apologies either, fuck them. This has been coming Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Exactly where I'm at with it too. Fuck the lot of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinitely Content Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 So is this only relevant to us if we did try to pursue a sponsorship deal with a Saudi company between 21-24? Or does it also have an impact hereafter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 We'd be fine with the UEFA rules of we were in the CL. Â It's a competition built on sponsorship exposure and vast swarms of money, you can then argue that clubs in the champions league can't attract mega sponsors. Certainly not to the level that we'd have, we're not going to see sponsorship deals that blow the premier league out of the water, just get to a level of parity with the cartel 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Spaceman Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Infinitely Content said: So is this only relevant to us if we did try to pursue a sponsorship deal with a Saudi company between 21-24? Or does it also have an impact hereafter? Â I guess we could argue we didn't bother for obvious reasons Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaztoon Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Very strange this from sky.. last to break the news and saying there is conflicting reports about the impact its will have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Gaztoon said: Very strange this from sky.. last to break the news and saying there is conflicting reports about the impact its will have. On the payroll and employ too many youchoobaz to actually have some real intelligent opinion on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Gaztoon said: Very strange this from sky.. last to break the news and saying there is conflicting reports about the impact its will have. Not really strange. They’re the primary rights holders and firmly in bed with the established order. It’ll be killing them that their golden goose has now got bird flu. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 If we can claim damaging amounts of compensation from the league, we could potentially use that to leverage the rules going forward. 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