Jump to content

Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability


Mattoon

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

No, but the point is that they should have been paying interest on the loans at fair market rate and that would count as expenditure.

And that fair market rate is easier to prove than the fair market value of a sponsorship.

 

Not that they'll go back and do something about the first one, because that opens all sorts of other challenges. Though it does mean less PSR headroom in the future for a lot of clubs with preferential loans, or else a lot of loans capitalised, assuming they want to keep the APT rules and vote for that, which would sting.

 

But on the second, the burden of proof re APTs shifts back to the PL. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck this shit into the Sun. So sick of football being a legal playground. Something needs to change very very soon to make football less corrupt otherwise it will destroy itself 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from...

 

 

Screen Shot 2024-10-07 at 10.48.57 AM.png

Daniel Levy I reckon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

5 days is all it took for the snowball to start. I wonder who that email came from...

 

 

Screen Shot 2024-10-07 at 10.48.57 AM.png

 

5 calendar days, but 2 of those 5 days were a Saturday and Sunday. And the takeover went through on the evening of the 7th, so that day doesn't count either.

 

So it actually only took 2 working days from NUFC takeover to an email request on behalf of 11 x clubs for a vote to ban related party transactions

 

There's only one thing that's "anti-competitive" and it's the desire from 11 x PL clubs and the PL itself to put rules in place that were purely to stop NUFC from being competitive

 

 

 

 

Edited by bobbydazzla

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PauloGeordio said:

But what does it all mean? Can we go large on sponsorship now?

yes

no

maybe

 

delete as you see fit

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

5 calendar days, but 2 of those 5 days were a Saturday and Sunday. And the takeover went through on the evening of the 7th, so that day doesn't count either.

 

So it actually only took 2 working days from NUFC takeover to an email request from 11 x clubs for a vote to ban related party transactions

 

There's only one thing that's "anti-competitive" and it's the desire from 11 x PL clubs and the PL itself to put rules in place that were purely to stop NUFC from competing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cowards the lot of them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is genius.

 

The rulings aren’t major, but the impact of those could well be.

 

- APT and FMV being fairly applied would screw up Arsenal, Brighton and a few other clubs

- Rules need to be re-drafted

- Legal challenges galore now expected

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said:

Is there no way we can pursue a legal challenge ourselves based on this? 

 

I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but...

 

 

Screen Shot 2024-10-07 at 11.07.12 AM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiotes Witch Doctor said:

Is there no way we can pursue a legal challenge ourselves based on this? 

I suspect if Premier League have blocked any of our sponsorship deals - yes as APT and FMV have not been applied fairly to shareholder loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but...

 

 

Screen Shot 2024-10-07 at 11.07.12 AM.png

 

I think we could use that as leverage to get a mother fucker of a deal from ARAMCO, "let it go through or we sue"

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but...

 

 

Screen Shot 2024-10-07 at 11.07.12 AM.png

Yeah, they think it is a defence that they were always going to do this, but actually it’s incriminating that they actually were never going to implement them. In the space of 3 years before we were taken over, and 2 years before our takeover was proposed, they would have done it.

They clearly ignored it, hoping the team taken over by Saudi or equally similarly rich countries/individuals was one of Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I have no idea if this opens any legal doors for us, but...

 

 

Screen Shot 2024-10-07 at 11.07.12 AM.png

 

 

 

Who else thinks it's Daniel Levy that's been redacted.....

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by bobbydazzla

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

 

The ink wasn't even dry on the contract to sell us to PIF and the PL and 11 x other clubs were already ganging up to change the rules, before NUFC

 

 

 

Who else thinks it's Daniel Levy that's been redacted.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course it's levy.. he's the mouthpiece for the cartel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

 

The ink wasn't even dry on the contract to sell us to PIF and the PL and 11 x other clubs were already ganging up to change the rules, before NUFC

 

 

 

Who else thinks it's Daniel Levy that's been redacted.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't Amanda say Spurs and 'pool were the biggest objectors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

Oh look. What a surprise who's backing with the PL...

 

 

Luke is missing the point. Shareholder loans now have to be included in PSR calculations at fair market value. This change screws up several clubs from a PSR perspective. The very rules clubs put in place to stop us, are about to bite them in the backside.

 

So while the rules have not changed today. The impact of this ruling will likely result in a change.

 

 

Edited by Maggies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Briefly reading the conclusions of the decision it does seem pretty limited in scope, more about procedural matters of not giving Man City the opportunity to respond to rejection of their sponsorship deals and not giving decisions in time.

 

They haven't made a decision on compensation yet though, which will be interesting for us because we might be able to get some too if they have rejected some of our deals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

Briefly reading the conclusions of the decision it does seem pretty limited in scope, more about procedural matters of not giving Man City the opportunity to respond to rejection of their sponsorship deals and not giving decisions in time.

 

They haven't made a decision on compensation yet though, which will be interesting for us because we might be able to get some too if they have rejected some of our deals.

 

Again eating into the prize pot, which only pushes all other clubs closer to failing psr.

 

Glorious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...