Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

6 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

Not sure the meaning of the smiley in that context but this happened to forest

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[nufcnick]

11 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Not in PL arbitration there isn’t. 
 

There is what in effect is a contractural agreement between the league and all member clubs  that save on a point of law where there is a route to the HC all clubs have agreed to abide by the decisions/ conclusions reached under the PL Rule Book and in particular section X which deals specifically with the arbitration procedure. 
 

The very last subsection excludes the route that you suggest is open to clubs.

 

 

A rule that a “boys club” puts in place can’t supersede the Law, if it’s knocked back in arbitration”which it will be” mancity can still take it to UK court’s and challenge it as un lawful 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

3 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

As far as i know all the clubs are 30 June year end as they have always been save for some dodgy covid accounting. By all means google which are run til 31 July but theres absolutely ZERO relevance to accounting years end/deadline day whatsoever. Thats entirely in your head

 

Forests defence (they lost points due to making this choice):

 

 

 

So I guess not entirely in my head?

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[Fezzle]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Forests defence (they lost points due to making this choice):

 

 

 

 

So they admit to breaking the rules but decided fuck it. Whats your point? I dont recall any rules preventing them from not buying 200 players to be left in the position where selling their prized asset was absolutely necessary to survive

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Fezzle said:

So they admit to breaking the rules but decided fuck it. Whats your point? I dont recall any rules preventing them from not buying 200 players to be left in the position where selling their prized asset was absolutely necessary to survive

 

This was my original point:

 

32 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Also it's mental that the FFP end date is not the day after the transfer window closes.  

 

 

Feels like I'm debating with a goldfish.

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Fair enough.  So extend that period to be 31 May and deadline day + 1 day.  Given all the clubs are focusing on 31 July I guess they've tried to get their accounting period as close as possible to dead line day to avoid selling players under market value.

 

 

 

 

Our published accounts are actually made up to 30th June (although I think we could possibly change that before they need to be submitrted to the PL on 31st March next year if we needed to), but not all clubs seem to use that date, I've only looked up Villa's but they're to the 31st of May.

[Fezzle]

Just now, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

This was my original point:

 

 

 

Feels like I'm debating with a goldfish.

 

 

 

 

But the point is club accounts have ALWAYSran to 30 June, You dont have to get yourself in a position where you need to move it. Also its stupidly naive to think you arent just moving the exact same problem a few months down the line

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

Our published accounts are actually made up to 30th June (although I think we could possibly change that before they need to be submitrted to the PL on 31st March next year if we needed to), but not all clubs seem to use that date, I've only looked up Villa's but they're to the 31st of May.

 

I'm basing my opinion on the Forest defence and Sky reporting a mini transfer day mid transfer due to teams having to balance their books.  Also probably having to accept below market prices to avoid points deduction.  It feels daft to me but obviously others disagree

[Maggies]

Sky trying to drum up some transfer interest as absolutely nothing else transfer related is happening.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, Fezzle said:

But the point is club accounts have ALWAYSran to 30 June, You dont have to get yourself in a position where you need to move it. Also its stupidly naive to think you arent just moving the exact same problem a few months down the line

 

The transfer market has been shown that leaving transfers later can maximise profit.  Forest showed that they got more money for a player by doing exactly this.  If this makes me stupidly naive in your opinion so be it.  

[NE27]

2 minutes ago, Maggies said:

Sky trying to drum up some transfer interest as absolutely nothing else transfer related is happening.

 

Their whole shtick is transfers and all of this shits all over it.

 

Sky sports news will become the football finances channel where Jim white and is yellow tie are rolled out to tell us about who isn't compliant come the end of psr deadline.

 

Correpondants outside of the courts covering the latest high court case on psr as dildos are rammed in their faces.

[FloydianMag]

22 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

 

Are the emails leaked or stolen? If stolen they might not be admissible as evidence.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

Are the emails leaked or stolen? If stolen they might not be admissible as evidence.

 

Suits was class like.  That's where I get 90% of my legal knowledge from 😀

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[Jackie Broon]

30 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

Not in PL arbitration there isn’t. 
 

There is what in effect is a contractural agreement between the league and all member clubs  that save on a point of law where there is a route to the HC all clubs have agreed to abide by the decisions/ conclusions reached under the PL Rule Book and in particular section X which deals specifically with the arbitration procedure. 
 

The very last subsection excludes the route that you suggest is open to clubs.

 

 

 

That doesn't exclude clubs from bringing a case against the PL through the CAT, like we did. Part of the PL's defence was that the CAT didn't have jurisdiction but it was pretty clear from the hearing that they were going to lose that argument.

 

Also, the PL's arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration Act, the High Court have jurisdiction over disputes and there is the ability to appeal an arbitration decision on a point of law in an arbitration case under the Act.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Jackie Broon

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Suits was class like.  That's where I get 90% of my legal knowledge from 😀

 

 

 

I worked in the CJS for more years than I care to remember and had lots of contact with solicitors and barristers, picked up bits and pieces over the years😅

[Holmesy]

23 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

Not sure the meaning of the smiley in that context but this happened to forest

 

 

 

 

That's a fucking scandal if that's what their points were deducted for! Sell him early in the window and get £10-15m less for him just so you comply with a fucking farce.

Jesus Christ, what a mess!

[TRon]

24 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

Suits was class like.  That's where I get 90% of my legal knowledge from 😀

 

 

 

 

Really? I couldn't get past the first episode, looked like typical glossy American fodder which was more about looking at the glamorous leads than any serious court drama. If the law side of it was actually decent might give it another go.

[Checko]

If they didn't overspend then it wouldn't have been a problem them holding out for longer. I find the normalisation of 'every club should be spending as much money as possible compared to what they have coming in' a bit odd. They knew the rules, stick to the rules. Most other clubs they were competing with did.

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

5 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Really? I couldn't get past the first episode, looked like typical glossy American fodder which was more about looking at the glamorous leads than any serious court drama. If the law side of it was actually decent might give it another go.

My son recommended it to me.  It's a bit episodic at first but I really grew into it.  

 

 

 

edit: TBF the law side of things do play second fiddle to drama.  I liked it for the characters.

 

 

Edited June 6 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

5 minutes ago, Checko said:

If they didn't overspend then it wouldn't have been a problem them holding out for longer. I find the normalisation of 'every club should be spending as much money as possible compared to what they have coming in' a bit odd. They knew the rules, stick to the rules. Most other clubs they were competing with did.

 

In principal I agree with this but you don't win anything for money left on the FFP plate.  Every team will be trying to maximise their spend.  The difference in money per league position is massive.  So you'd gamble on where you end up in the league to get you as close to the limit as possible.  One or two things don't go your way and you need money.  I think the reporting period is low down on what's wrong with FFP but still think that if it enables teams to force your hand to a sale under market value it's not great.  

[Groundhog63]

39 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Are the emails leaked or stolen? If stolen they might not be admissible as evidence.

My understanding is the emails were leaked to De Spiegal (sp?) and it's they who are releasing them in stages. 

Definitely admissible. 

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Groundhog63 said:

My understanding is the emails were leaked to De Spiegal (sp?) and it's they who are releasing them in stages. 

Definitely admissible. 

 

I think the point of PL's arbitration with Man City over disclosure was that the leaked emails were inadmissible, so the PL were requring them to be disclosed and Man City were resisting that.

[Decky]

I think the club needs to consider its own legal action on the basis of it being anti-competitive. The idea that we have to sell someone like Bruno to a team who will be our direct competitors for top four next season is fucking wild. Its complete corruption to keep the top clubs at the top and fuck teams like us over. Take the cunts to court, fuck it. 

[Terraloon]

1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

That doesn't exclude clubs from bringing a case against the PL through the CAT, like we did. Part of the PL's defence was that the CAT didn't have jurisdiction but it was pretty clear from the hearing that they were going to lose that argument.

 

Also, the PL's arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration Act, the High Court have jurisdiction over disputes and there is the ability to appeal an arbitration decision on a point of law in an arbitration case under the Act.

 

 

 

 

 

Newcastle Utd didn’t take the matter to CAT it was ST James  Holdings Ltd. Subtle difference bearing in mind the ownership hierarchy but that was the QCs case and that argument was likely to succeed, as you say, but it was because Ashley hadn’t submitted information in accord it seems with PL regulations.
 

SJHL case  was that they weren’t duty bound to the football bodies (FA& PL) process of arbitration as dictated to by FIFA and in reality had the PL been of a mind they could in all likelihood have charged  Ashley & NUFC 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 6 by Terraloon

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

I believe a third party could take the premier league to a CAT tribunal.  Let's say a random Saudi firm was not allowed to sponsor Newcastle as they deemed the amount they offered above fair market value.  They are not held by the premier league rules so could open a case.  This would also not be hidden behind the privacy rules.  I forget the specifics of how we got the premier league in front of CAT but it can be done.

 

 

They are allowed to sponsor us for how much they want, but we're only allowed to offset what Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs say is fair when it comes to FFP.