Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Scotty66]

7 hours ago, Erikse said:

 

Haven't checked on Carragher, but I have now looked through different articles on Simon Jordan comments regarding the case. As I said he is criticising how they are handling the investigation etc., and saying that if you are innocent then it should be easy for you to prove it. Which is true. Not a single time does he seem to say that they ARE guilty. He has however said that IF they are guilty, they should be punished very hard. But that's not saying that they are. I'm not a fan of Simon Jordan, but lets not put words into his mouth. Or maybe you could show me an example?

 

 

 

It's not what he's written it's what he's said on talk sport. There's been numerous times it's come up in discussion and it's obvious that Jordan is having a dig and a snigger about it. Clearly implying they are guilty and will be charged to millions of people tuning in.

I'm almost certain that if city go ahead with what they intend in that tweet I shared then Jordan's name will be one of those mentioned.

He did it with us during the takeover, saying AS hasn't got the funds and that the Premier league will not ever approve the deal. He states his opinion as facts which can be very dangerous for things regarding the City charges etc .

[Mase]

7 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Nope, the appeal would be to an appeal panel as set out in the PL's rules.

 

Man City went to the High Court in 2021 to challenge the PL's juristiction to force them to formally disclose documents, and lost. The documents the PL wanted access to were probably documents that the PL already knew existed through the leaked emails, like this one: 

 

Most of us are expecting we're going to try to do the same kind of thing, but won't be daft enough to put it in emails and allow them to be hacked. If we were caught red handed I think most would say "fair cop" rather than blindly claiming our club is innocent, I certainly would.

 

 

 

it would go to the PL panel in the first instance. But after that it would be the High Court. 
 

Hope that helps. 

[Erikse]

2 hours ago, Scotty66 said:

It's not what he's written it's what he's said on talk sport. There's been numerous times it's come up in discussion and it's obvious that Jordan is having a dig and a snigger about it. Clearly implying they are guilty and will be charged to millions of people tuning in.

I'm almost certain that if city go ahead with what they intend in that tweet I shared then Jordan's name will be one of those mentioned.

He did it with us during the takeover, saying AS hasn't got the funds and that the Premier league will not ever approve the deal. He states his opinion as facts which can be very dangerous for things regarding the City charges etc .

 

The articles are writing everything that he is saying on the podcasts, in quotes. It's not something that he is writing himself. I saw videos aswell, there is no video of him saying that they ARE guilty. You could still give me an example it I'm wrong on that. As I said he is just criticising them for how they deal with the process, he never said that they ARE guilty. Insinuating shouldn't really be illegal, are journalist all supposed to talk about how they must be innocent? "Oh they are sabotaging the investigation, but you know, they probably have their reason since they must be innocent." That would definetly not be one sided. Saying that people who refuse to cooperate in investigations are usually guilty is just a pure fact.

 

 

Edited April 27 by Erikse

[Scotty66]

Mate I really can't be fucked to keep going back and forward with you and it's not really a big deal. Why would I make it up?I've heard him myself say things like "city broke the rules" when at this moment they haven't been found guilty of that.

Anyone that listens to him regularly can clearly see he thinks city are guilty and he digs them about it too. It's a dangerous thing to do involving court cases etc.

[Erikse]

13 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

Mate I really can't be fucked to keep going back and forward with you and it's not really a big deal. Why would I make it up?I've heard him myself say things like "city broke the rules" when at this moment they haven't been found guilty of that.

Anyone that listens to him regularly can clearly see he thinks city are guilty and he digs them about it too. It's a dangerous thing to do involving court cases etc.

 

That's completely different from saying that they are. And if he did, it would be easy for me to find it. I don't think that it's wrong to talk about court cases, unless you actually say someone is guilty, which he didn't. He knows how to word himself in these cases in a way that everyone knows what he means, but he doesn't actually say it. That way he avoids the trouble, or avoid being told that he was wrong, in which he can just say "I didn't say that". That sly bugger.

 

 

Edited April 27 by Erikse

[Jackie Broon]

3 hours ago, Mase said:

it would go to the PL panel in the first instance. But after that it would be the High Court. 
 

Hope that helps. 

 

Nope, the High Court only had jurisdiction over the arbitration process around disclosure of documents because it was under the Arbitration Act.

 

Man City's only route if they lose a PL appeal would probably be to challenge the legality of the Profit and Sustainability rules themselves under competition law, which would be via the Competition Appeals Tribunal.

 

However, they'd have to argue that they're anti-competitive in that they keep the top 6 a closed shop, Man City benefits from that, would they really want them to be set aside? Unless the club is going to be relegated I think they might just take the punishment if they lose an appeal through the PL process.

 

I hope they do successfully challenge the rules though, because we'd probably be the biggest beneficiaries of that.

[Abacus]

43 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Nope, the High Court only had jurisdiction over the arbitration process around disclosure of documents because it was under the Arbitration Act.

 

Man City's only route if they lose a PL appeal would probably be to challenge the legality of the Profit and Sustainability rules themselves under competition law, which would be via the Competition Appeals Tribunal.

 

However, they'd have to argue that they're anti-competitive in that they keep the top 6 a closed shop, Man City benefits from that, would they really want them to be set aside? Unless the club is going to be relegated I think they might just take the punishment if they lose an appeal through the PL process.

 

I hope they do successfully challenge the rules though, because we'd probably be the biggest beneficiaries of that.

On the other hand, I don't think there's all that much fraternity within the ESL 6. Man City could blow up the rules and carry on unimpeded and I doubt they'd give a hoot about what the others thought - their own position would be fine, which is all any of them care about.

[TRon]

8 hours ago, Ben said:

Pep has already said if they are found guilty he's off, this summer could see the end of Man City as we know it, relegation would be glorious but who could afford their players with current FFP rules in place ?

 

I'm not really that fussed if the football side comes crashing down for Man City, without a doubt the oil wealth from the Emirates turned them into a super club from a position of mid-table mediocrity. But the money the Qataris pumped into the refurbishment of the city would never have happened without it. I'm assuming things might be different going forward. Not only for City, but for Newcastle as well. PIF might well decide just to see Newcastle as a pure investment in jacked up Ashley-vision. They could well decide they can just make money through trading players and not invest in the city or waste money trying to break into a closed shop.

[Ben]

19 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I'm not really that fussed if the football side comes crashing down for Man City, without a doubt the oil wealth from the Emirates turned them into a super club from a position of mid-table mediocrity. But the money the Qataris pumped into the refurbishment of the city would never have happened without it. I'm assuming things might be different going forward. Not only for City, but for Newcastle as well. PIF might well decide just to see Newcastle as a pure investment in jacked up Ashley-vision. They could well decide they can just make money through trading players and not invest in the city or waste money trying to break into a closed shop.

 

Fair point

[FloydianMag]

6 hours ago, TRon said:

 

I'm not really that fussed if the football side comes crashing down for Man City, without a doubt the oil wealth from the Emirates turned them into a super club from a position of mid-table mediocrity. But the money the Qataris pumped into the refurbishment of the city would never have happened without it. I'm assuming things might be different going forward. Not only for City, but for Newcastle as well. PIF might well decide just to see Newcastle as a pure investment in jacked up Ashley-vision. They could well decide they can just make money through trading players and not invest in the city or waste money trying to break into a closed shop.

Abu Dhabi money, not Qatar.

[Myleftboot]

7 hours ago, TRon said:

 

I'm not really that fussed if the football side comes crashing down for Man City, without a doubt the oil wealth from the Emirates turned them into a super club from a position of mid-table mediocrity. But the money the Qataris pumped into the refurbishment of the city would never have happened without it. I'm assuming things might be different going forward. Not only for City, but for Newcastle as well. PIF might well decide just to see Newcastle as a pure investment in jacked up Ashley-vision. They could well decide they can just make money through trading players and not invest in the city or waste money trying to break into a closed shop.

Suppose we’ll have to wait and see.

[Jack27]

Tomorrow should be interesting 

[McDog]

7 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

Tomorrow should be interesting 

 

 

Interesting if nothing else.

 

 

[WilliamPS]

That’s a proposal I actually agree with, as is about the overall league staying competitive and is basically a salary cap for the league.

 

Clubs that back the 85% cap but vote against this show themselves as uninterested in fair play and only interested in protecting their own position (so expect the usual suspects)

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

That’s a proposal I actually agree with, as is about the overall league staying competitive and is basically a salary cap for the league.

 

Clubs that back the 85% cap but vote against this show themselves as uninterested in fair play and only interested in protecting their own position (so expect the usual suspects)

PFA could also challenge any wage cap, football agents have already won a legal challenge at capping their fees.

[WilliamPS]

11 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

PFA could also challenge any wage cap, football agents have already won a legal challenge at capping their fees.

The 85% limit is also a wage cap. All these restrictions are caps - IMO this latest proposal is a form of cap that’s good for the league rather than good for a certain set of clubs

[FloydianMag]

32 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

The 85% limit is also a wage cap. All these restrictions are caps - IMO this latest proposal is a form of cap that’s good for the league rather than good for a certain set of clubs

Clubs who are significantly impacted by PSR etc have dithered about taking legal action on the grounds of rules being anti competitive, I bet if this is introduced and the cartel clubs spending is capped they’ll resort to a legal challenge at a CAT without hesitation. 

[nufcnick]

8 hours ago, McDog said:

 

 

Interesting if nothing else.

 

 

Interesting to see which clubs reject it 

[Ikon]

4 minutes ago, nufcnick said:

Interesting to see which clubs reject it 

Half at least I think. Many of them don’t want to have to spend because other can and want. Also, the 6 will not want anyone trying to break their monopoly up. 

[Stifler]

Aye, it will get nowhere.

Some clubs will vote with the top 6, fuck knows why really, but they often do.

[Keegans Export]

• The "Big Six" will vote against it because they don't want to restrict their own spending versus European competitors but also want to limit the likes of us and Villa from matching their spending power
• Teams like West Ham and Brighton will vote against it because they don't want us (and possibly Villa) suddenly being able to spend twice as much as we are now because their owners couldn't afford to keep up
• Perennial bottom-half teams don't want to risk a fellow relegation candidate getting bought out and being able to buy their way out of trouble overnight

Honestly, if this gets more than a handful of votes in favour I'd be very, very surprised. 

[McCormick]

Yep. Can only think of Man City, Chelsea, Forest, Us and Villa being in favour of the change (possibly Everton too?).

[FloydianMag]

7 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

• The "Big Six" will vote against it because they don't want to restrict their own spending versus European competitors but also want to limit the likes of us and Villa from matching their spending power
• Teams like West Ham and Brighton will vote against it because they don't want us (and possibly Villa) suddenly being able to spend twice as much as we are now because their owners couldn't afford to keep up
• Perennial bottom-half teams don't want to risk a fellow relegation candidate getting bought out and being able to buy their way out of trouble overnight

Honestly, if this gets more than a handful of votes in favour I'd be very, very surprised. 

If it was voted in at least 5 of the big 6 have called it anti competitive and could resort to legal action!! The fucking neck of these twats knows no bounds.

[Keegans Export]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

If it was voted in at least 5 of the big 6 have called it anti competitive and could resort to legal action!! The fucking neck of these twats knows no bounds.

 

Don't blame them for threatening but would the argument against be;

• They'd still have to abide by UEFAs 70% rule regardless
• Judging by Kieran Maguire's figures, if the multiplier was 4.5x then only Chelsea and Man City would be over the limit currently, if it was 5x it'd just be Chelsea
•  On current spending, English teams (especially the "big six") are competitive both in terms of attracting players and in terms of success on the pitch

The same argument could be made against a challenge from the PFA - 18/20 (or 19/20) clubs are already spending within this hypothetical limit, nobody is having to get their wages cut to keep their club within the rules. That was part of the argument against Saracens - you can't say the salary cap is anit-competitive because you are still attracting top European players and regularly winning European games and competitions. Admittedly that was just arbitration though wasn't it?

[FloydianMag]

21 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

 

Don't blame them for threatening but would the argument against be;

• They'd still have to abide by UEFAs 70% rule regardless
• Judging by Kieran Maguire's figures, if the multiplier was 4.5x then only Chelsea and Man City would be over the limit currently, if it was 5x it'd just be Chelsea
•  On current spending, English teams (especially the "big six") are competitive both in terms of attracting players and in terms of success on the pitch

The same argument could be made against a challenge from the PFA - 18/20 (or 19/20) clubs are already spending within this hypothetical limit, nobody is having to get their wages cut to keep their club within the rules. That was part of the argument against Saracens - you can't say the salary cap is anit-competitive because you are still attracting top European players and regularly winning European games and competitions. Admittedly that was just arbitration though wasn't it?

I think the argument in any legal challenge on an anti competitive rules or practises could be as simple as governing bodies should organise competitions and not involve themselves in clubs financial activities and that includes UEFA.

 

As I’ve said before a Court ruling in the UK and Germany forced FIFA and the PL to end plans to cap agents fees and that was on an anti competitive basis.