Teslact Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 hours ago, FloydianMag said: On Arsenal Mania🤷♂️ I wonder which side they are poking fun at, or if it's both? He'd consider it at a minimum. "Stan" ripped a team out of one city to move it to another 2000 miles away for almost 30 years, before not getting taxpayer funding he demanded and moved it back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 hour ago, Terraloon said: Because HMRC wouldn’t just allow that involving the VO Agency to determine the commercial value of the properties particularly if the properties were disposed of for that much under their depreciated value But surely that would just trigger a tax bill and wouldn't force the cash to change hands between the 2 parties. Tax bill would still make it worthwhile as a FFP dodge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 (edited) 4 hours ago, Joelinton7 said: Saw dear stan and thought it was a rap Me too. Still, bit tired of being dragged into everything as if we're some great white shark ready to bite. Edited June 7 by Abacus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 9 hours ago, Colos Short and Curlies said: But surely that would just trigger a tax bill and wouldn't force the cash to change hands between the 2 parties. Tax bill would still make it worthwhile as a FFP dodge You then would get into a debate about fair value ( it works both way) with the PL/ UEFA but , and now I am getting outside my knowledge, I would imagine that the Police could well get involved because that sounds akin to Fraudulent Accounting particularly as you are talking about the same individuals agreeing the transactions Also I would imagine that HMRC would be challenging the accounts which would come with a whole load of implications Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Me trying to work out all these connotations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 It's being reported that the Dell owners are backing a bid to buy Everton. More mega-rich owners who won't be allowed to spend, then. Anyway, I'm sure Sunderland will have some spare shirts to send them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) PL officials and former officials have had to hand over all mobile phones and emails in relation to City’s 115 charges. Wonder what they find!! https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-hearing-charges-premier-league-apt-rules-sqbqsj6wc Edited June 9 by FloydianMag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 20 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: PL officials and former officials have had to hand over all mobile phones and emails in relation to City’s 115 charges. Wonder what they find!! https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-hearing-charges-premier-league-apt-rules-sqbqsj6wc Hopefully plenty of texts from red shirted clubs. Would be great to get the cunts on some sort of collusion charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Potentially dynamite will the PL fold again like in our takeover and drop City’s charges. Could be a lot of evidence showing competitors colluding, leading to further action and cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 52 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: PL officials and former officials have had to hand over all mobile phones and emails in relation to City’s 115 charges. Wonder what they find!! https://www.thetimes.com/sport/football/article/man-city-hearing-charges-premier-league-apt-rules-sqbqsj6wc "It is a move that has sparked civil war among Premier League clubs, with City claiming their Abu Dhabi owners are victims of “discrimination” and the rules around associated party transactions (APT), which were introduced in December 2021, amount to a “tyranny of the majority”. They also say the rules are designed to stifle their future success on the pitch." They've literally won 4 in a row under the current rules, while continously being the club that are allowed to spend the most every season, having most other teams being held back by FFP.. I feel really bad for them, they are so hard done by.. Edited June 9 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 2 minutes ago, Erikse said: "It is a move that has sparked civil war among Premier League clubs, with City claiming their Abu Dhabi owners are victims of “discrimination” and the rules around associated party transactions (APT), which were introduced in December 2021, amount to a “tyranny of the majority”. They also say the rules are designed to stifle their future success on the pitch." They've literally won 4 in a row under the current rules, while continously being the club that are allowed to spend the most every season, having most other teams being held back by FFP.. I feel really bad for them.. I guess what they’re concerned about is when their current sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi run out and they have to re-negotiate future deals, that’s when the new uncompetitive APT rules will bite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: I guess what they’re concerned about is when their current sponsorship deals with Abu Dhabi run out and they have to re-negotiate future deals, that’s when the new uncompetitive APT rules will bite. Like every other team, right? Don't see how that's uncompetitive. They will easily get other good sponsorship deals, just not overly inflated ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 1 minute ago, Erikse said: Like every other team, right? Don't see how that's uncompetitive. They will easily get other good sponsorship deals, just not overly inflated ones. Will all the deals with US companies of American owned clubs in the PL suffer the same levels of scrutiny? I doubt it therefore discriminatory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobloblaw Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 10 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Will all the deals with US companies of American owned clubs in the PL suffer the same levels of scrutiny? I doubt it therefore discriminatory. It's pretty obvious why those are two different things, aside from any shady Chelsea stuff. They aren't deals from affiliated companies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erikse Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 21 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Will all the deals with US companies of American owned clubs in the PL suffer the same levels of scrutiny? I doubt it therefore discriminatory. Matter of fact is that Man City has had the most income through sponsorship. Etihad Airways is by far the biggest sponsorship deal in footballing history. Look what happened. 4 years in a row. They can still spend the most, and this will continue to be true. This is the defintion of "uncompetitive": "characterized by a desire to avoid fair competition." This is what Man City want, to avoid fair competition. It's kind of the problem we have with FFP, that it just retains the status quo. Man Citys domination is fueled by FFP. If it were up to them, they wouldn't want any more changes to be brought up, because the system is already made for them to continue their domination. So, they can cry me a river here. Edited June 9 by Erikse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 3 minutes ago, bobloblaw said: It's pretty obvious why those are two different things, aside from any shady Chelsea stuff. They aren't deals from affiliated companies. And you know that how? You don’t know what owners like the Glazers, Bohely and even FSG are up to or their links and contacts with US business who sponsor teams in the PL. That’s why it should be scrutinised and scrutinised to the same level as Gulf sponsorship for transparency. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobloblaw Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: And you know that how? You don’t know what owners like the Glazers, Bohely and even FSG are up to or their links and contacts with US business who sponsor teams in the PL. That’s why it should be scrutinised and scrutinised to the same level as Gulf sponsorship for transparency. Well as far as FSG goes I do know because I pay attention as a Red Sox fan. And from what I can tell FSG is saving up money to buy a new NBA franchise in Las Vegas once LeBron retires (that's why they brought him in). Sure it should be scrutinized, but it is pretty clear what they invest in. It is very different than say ARAMCO sponsoring NUFC when it is run by the PIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 2 minutes ago, bobloblaw said: Well as far as FSG goes I do know because I pay attention as a Red Sox fan. And from what I can tell FSG is saving up money to buy a new NBA franchise in Las Vegas once LeBron retires (that's why they brought him in). Sure it should be scrutinized, but it is pretty clear what they invest in. It is very different than say ARAMCO sponsoring NUFC when it is run by the PIF. The PL don’t want any sponsorship from the Gulf region if the truth be told. If Sela want to sponsor Newcastle’s shirt front for £60 million a season, so what. Governing bodies should not be involving themselves in any clubs commercial activities if the monies are legal and there is transparency and recorded in the company accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 (edited) 29 minutes ago, bobloblaw said: Well as far as FSG goes I do know because I pay attention as a Red Sox fan. And from what I can tell FSG is saving up money to buy a new NBA franchise in Las Vegas once LeBron retires (that's why they brought him in). Sure it should be scrutinized, but it is pretty clear what they invest in. It is very different than say ARAMCO sponsoring NUFC when it is run by the PIF. No it's not, UK competition law not a premier league rule, takes precedence Edited June 9 by et tu brute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobloblaw Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: The PL don’t want any sponsorship from the Gulf region if the truth be told. If Sela want to sponsor Newcastle’s shirt front for £60 million a season, so what. Governing bodies should not be involving themselves in any clubs commercial activities if the monies are legal and there is transparency and recorded in the company accounts. I agree that's how I'd like it to be. 2 minutes ago, et tu brute said: No it's not UK competition law not a premier league rule takes precedence I think you are missing some punctuation there. If you are saying UK law takes precedence, well then I'd agree with you in the hope that AFT is thrown out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawalls Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 1 hour ago, Erikse said: Matter of fact is that Man City has had the most income through sponsorship. Etihad Airways is by far the biggest sponsorship deal in footballing history. Look what happened. 4 years in a row. They can still spend the most, and this will continue to be true. This is the defintion of "uncompetitive": "characterized by a desire to avoid fair competition." This is what Man City want, to avoid fair competition. It's kind of the problem we have with FFP, that it just retains the status quo. Man Citys domination is fueled by FFP. If it were up to them, they wouldn't want any more changes to be brought up, because the system is already made for them to continue their domination. So, they can cry me a river here. And even if the deal ran out today for arguments sake and they had to renegotiate- they can charge more thanks to their success that was allowed thanks in no small part to their old over inflated deal. It’s spring boarded them so no sympathy from me either personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 A much more balanced and fair article than the hysterical rants of Delaney, Liew and Lawton re APT and City’s arbitration. https://amp.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/08/manchester-city-premier-league-legal-case Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 In all honesty I see Man City’s point of view. Every club before them who had any extended period of success has done so by being able to be funded by owners without the need to go through sponsorships. One of those clubs shares the same city as them and has probably taken a fair chunk of their supporters base because of it, another of those clubs is in the same region as them. Flip the situation around and say Sunderland and Boro did it to us, we’d rightfully be biting back saying what goes around, comes around. To a lesser degree, you also have to remember that these sponsors are not just sponsoring Man City, but they are usually City football group wide sponsorship deals which represents 13 clubs or so world wide. As we have seen ourselves, it’s absolutely fucking shambolic that the Premier League have done fuck all to protect clubs from bad owners, aside from keeping the red tops happy, what the fuck is the point in protecting clubs from good owners? Even the Everton situation is on the Premier League. If they allowed them to spend when their owner, be that Moshiri or who he was funded by to invest, then Everton would have done what we did last season, and Villa did this season. Even if their owners did get caught up, they would have had a team ready to compete, going into a new stadium, they would have easily been able to sell them for about £1bn, instead of attempting to sell to Ponzi schemes, and every want to be ‘Investment consortium’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 14 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: A much more balanced and fair article than the hysterical rants of Delaney, Liew and Lawton re APT and City’s arbitration. https://amp.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/08/manchester-city-premier-league-legal-case "The case will be heard in private and there will be no public acknowledgment of any outcome, nor the reasons behind it" Sounds reasonable. You'd never think this was an organisation desperate not to have an independent regulator imposed on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 6 minutes ago, madras said: "The case will be heard in private and there will be no public acknowledgment of any outcome, nor the reasons behind it" Sounds reasonable. You'd never think this was an organisation desperate not to have an independent regulator imposed on it. There’ll be the inevitable leaks, always is but transparency has to be the way to go to avoid suspicion etc. 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