Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

Not a chance you get Arsenal to join the dark side   they become irrelevant if this gets split open. 

Aye. They will try and find another route to stop us. 
 

But these piece will have to be repealed or severely relaxed. 

[et tu brute]

5 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

would suspect that the PL are indeed in a stronger position in that the leaks some while ago was that City were going to win in some narrow areas so the tribunal ruling will shape changes 

 

Not according to City. 

 

[KetsbaiaIsBald]

56 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

But loans are incredibly easy, if a commercial bank would give you the rate it’s a market rate- as it’s literally available on the market.

 

It really is not that simple when dealing with the amounts that the clubs are borrowing.  200 million for example is nearly getting into the world of syndicate loans.  The process to determine the rates is highly complex even if the loan is party to party.

 

 

Edited October 8 by KetsbaiaIsBald

[Nucasol]

14 minutes ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said:

 

It really is not that simple when dealing with the amounts that the clubs are borrowing.  200 million for example is nearly getting into the world of syndicate loans.  The process to determine the rates is highly complex even if the loan is party to party.

 

 

 

Yep, project finance, other types of complex syndicate arrangement. Everton are probably in the leveraged loan space at this point!

[Colos Short and Curlies]

50 minutes ago, Terraloon said:

 

 

Bear in mind that PSR rules were being amended to another form of control  and whilst City are clearly trying to put the PL under even greater pressure they , City threw everything including the kitchen sink at this arbitration and yes they have won the argument around process the principle argument about the legality of measures applied to  associated transactions they didn’t win and that is the main point here.

 

City I genuinely believe had hoped for a far more definitive ruling and that isn’t the case. The likelihood of this impacting the 115 /130 allegations is close to zero s now focus will turn to the three sponsorship deals that are in limbo and in all probability will now have to be agreed as will some sort of compensation.

 

I would suspect that the PL are indeed in a stronger position in that the leaks some while ago was that City were going to win in some narrow areas so the tribunal ruling will shape changes 

 

 

 

The main point though is that City did win and did prove that the PL's APT rules were illegal. They didn't need to win on all the points put forward and there is clear position.

 

APT rules are in themselves allowable and would be a sensible thing for the PL to have

The PL APT rules are structured in a way that makes them illegal.

 

This gives City 2 things - 1 resolution that they have been disadvantaged by illegal rules and more importantly (2) they have had an insight to how the courts view various aspects which will feed into their defence for the 115 charges.

 

From a PL view they have lost, yes they could introduce legally compliant rules quite easily if they were starting from scratch but unwinding what they have let build is going to prove very costly, if not impossible. They can spin it however they like, but the overall ruling is that their rule is illegal.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

The main point though is that City did win and did prove that the PL's APT rules were illegal. They didn't need to win on all the points put forward and there is clear position.

 

APT rules are in themselves allowable and would be a sensible thing for the PL to have

The PL APT rules are structured in a way that makes them illegal.

 

This gives City 2 things - 1 resolution that they have been disadvantaged by illegal rules and more importantly (2) they have had an insight to how the courts view various aspects which will feed into their defence for the 115 charges.

 

From a PL view they have lost, yes they could introduce legally compliant rules quite easily if they were starting from scratch but unwinding what they have let build is going to prove very costly, if not impossible. They can spin it however they like, but the overall ruling is that their rule is illegal.

APT rules were found to be illegal by object, I did a quick Google at what by object means,

 

First, the breach of competition law can be established without it being necessary to demonstrate the actual or potential anticompetitive effects in the relevant economic and legal context. Second, the behaviour in question is prohibited because its object, or its 'precise purpose', is anticompetitive.

 

Quite clear what the APT rules were designed to do.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

APT rules were found to be illegal by object, I did a quick Google at what by object means,

 

First, the breach of competition law can be established without it being necessary to demonstrate the actual or potential anticompetitive effects in the relevant economic and legal context. Second, the behaviour in question is prohibited because its object, or its 'precise purpose', is anticompetitive.

 

Quite clear what the APT rules were designed to do.

 

Yes but the key is that it is the PLs APT laws that were ruled on as being illegal and not the idea of APT full stop.

 

Even Shaggy and Scooby Doo could work out the PLs plan with the rules they had in place

[Mase]

20 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

The main point though is that City did win and did prove that the PL's APT rules were illegal. They didn't need to win on all the points put forward and there is clear position.

 

APT rules are in themselves allowable and would be a sensible thing for the PL to have

The PL APT rules are structured in a way that makes them illegal.

 

This gives City 2 things - 1 resolution that they have been disadvantaged by illegal rules and more importantly (2) they have had an insight to how the courts view various aspects which will feed into their defence for the 115 charges.

 

From a PL view they have lost, yes they could introduce legally compliant rules quite easily if they were starting from scratch but unwinding what they have let build is going to prove very costly, if not impossible. They can spin it however they like, but the overall ruling is that their rule is illegal.

Someone has said, The Premier League have taken their car in for an MOT with a dead body in the boot. 
The PL are now celebrating their car passing its MOT whilst at the same time being done for murder.

[bobbydazzla]

25 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

APT rules were found to be illegal by object, I did a quick Google at what by object means,

 

First, the breach of competition law can be established without it being necessary to demonstrate the actual or potential anticompetitive effects in the relevant economic and legal context. Second, the behaviour in question is prohibited because its object, or its 'precise purpose', is anticompetitive.

 

Quite clear what the APT rules were designed to do.

 

The APT rules were rolled out as soon as our takeover went through, with one aim in mind

 

NUFC were 2nd bottom of the league, winless, with a bare bones staff, bare bones facilities, huge commercial revenue decline and a fraud in the dug out. Likely to be relegated for the 3rd time in 14 years of Ashley ownership.

 

So the PL and a majority of PL clubs immediately cut off a potential source of finance that could potentially be used to make NUFC competitive again. They cut it off because they were scared we MIGHT use it

 

It doesn't get more anti-competitive than that. The entire PL plan was designed to stifle competition and maintain the status quo.

 

 

 

Edited October 8 by bobbydazzla

[Guybrush]

Can we spend hundreds of billions or not? The only question I need answering.

[duo]

12 minutes ago, Guybrush said:

Can we spend hundreds of billions or not? The only question I need answering.

Clubs will be able to get more through as part of APT deals but the rules are still there.  The biggest impact I can see is the ruling that interest free loans shouldn't be excluded from PSR and clubs need to be paying interest.  That'll bring a lot of clubs in to play of breaching the rules which in turn will have more clubs wanting change - which can only benefit us.

[timeEd32]

City being this aggressive means it’s anyone’s guess how this plays out. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

It'll all make a great film one day

[Paully]

How that imbecile Masters still has that job is beyond me!

 

Utter shambles!

[WilliamPS]

22 minutes ago, Guybrush said:

Can we spend hundreds of billions or not? The only question I need answering.

Man City say yes, the PL says no. Be another legal scrap before we know who is right 

[TRon]

25 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

The APT rules were rolled out as soon as our takeover went through, with one aim in mind

 

NUFC were 2nd bottom of the league, winless, with a bare bones staff, bare bones facilities, huge commercial revenue decline and a fraud in the dug out. Likely to be relegated for the 3rd time in 14 years of Ashley ownership.

 

So the PL and a majority of PL clubs immediately cut off a potential source of finance that could potentially be used to make NUFC competitive again. They cut it off because they were scared we MIGHT use it

 

It doesn't get more anti-competitive than that. The entire PL plan was designed to stifle competition and maintain the status quo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And tbh, most football writers have touched upon this, even those who don't sympathise with the PIF takeover of Newcastle. It was clear as day who all these new regulations were aimed at, even if it's never going to be admitted publicly.

[TRon]

4 minutes ago, WilliamPS said:

Man City say yes, the PL says no. Be another legal scrap before we know who is right 

 

Rick Masters and the PL don't mind the legal scraps, they aren't going to pay out of their pockets. At some point clubs must surely wake up and realise all these costs are being subsidised by them directly, for the benefit of the cartel clubs.

[David Edgar]

Man City woke up and chose violence, eh.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

9 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Rick Masters and the PL don't mind the legal scraps, they aren't going to pay out of their pockets. At some point clubs must surely wake up and realise all these costs are being subsidised by them directly, for the benefit of the cartel clubs.

Well they could always have votes against the rules originally, couldn’t they? The point is they want into the PL as cheap as possible and without having to put too much money in to compete. It’s not just the top clubs that want this stuff. 

[TRon]

17 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Well they could always have votes against the rules originally, couldn’t they? The point is they want into the PL as cheap as possible and without having to put too much money in to compete. It’s not just the top clubs that want this stuff. 

 

At the time they were probably not expecting the ongoing legal fees rocketing to the extent that they have. Maybe it's still worth it to them I haven't looked at the bigger picture tbf. Sad state of affairs if it is though.

[JEToon]

I know it is in jest, but the reality is we were never going to “really” be able to spend hundreds of millions in what would have been a short time, we would have been verging on buggered when it came to Europe if we had, there is only so much we could have spent/so many players we could have logically signed.  The club have literally said this numerous times, it was always going to be an organic growth, even City had to go through that, you aren’t going to just go from 18th to 1st in a year.

The idea for instance we were adding Mbappe, Vinicius and Vitinha in one window as seemed to be feared was never reality.

 

It feels like there are 100 other ways the EPL could have managed this rather than what seems to have been a “don’t let them spend money” stance

 

Even if unlimited funds are unlocked for us as a consequence of this, which I doubt, as they will alter wording, we would still have somewhat restricted spend to a certain extent even purely from a naturally building a team angle let alone the actual allowing of funds to be spent.

 

The league acted in fear on this to me rather than with sense 

 

 

Edited October 8 by JEToon

[geordiesteve710]

More I think about this, the more I think the most important ruling is the one putting the onus on the PL to prove that deals aren't market value rather than for clubs to prove that they are. They've got two big problems here.

 

First, unless they are allowed to disclose the "commercially sensitive" data they're already starting the task with one hand tied behind their backs. And secondly, we have seen oer a few years now how bad the PL is run, how it is unable to robustly defend its position in courts or tribunals and the cost to them of doing so. Say Man City sign 100 blatantly dodgy sponsorship deals tomorrow, how much resource will it take for the PL to defend them, do they have any other skeletons in the closet that will hinder them at disclosure and do the PL clus have the stomach to keep on funding several expensive legal battles?

[Zero]

16 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

More I think about this, the more I think the most important ruling is the one putting the onus on the PL to prove that deals aren't market value rather than for clubs to prove that they are. They've got two big problems here.

 

First, unless they are allowed to disclose the "commercially sensitive" data they're already starting the task with one hand tied behind their backs. And secondly, we have seen oer a few years now how bad the PL is run, how it is unable to robustly defend its position in courts or tribunals and the cost to them of doing so. Say Man City sign 100 blatantly dodgy sponsorship deals tomorrow, how much resource will it take for the PL to defend them, do they have any other skeletons in the closet that will hinder them at disclosure and do the PL clus have the stomach to keep on funding several expensive legal battles?

 

Yep, exactly what I mean. No way EPL has to resources to challenge so many deals. Say we sign a new shirt sponsor deals worth 40m, just 15m more than Sela, how is it “feasible” for EPL to challenge?

[Jackie Broon]

38 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

More I think about this, the more I think the most important ruling is the one putting the onus on the PL to prove that deals aren't market value rather than for clubs to prove that they are. They've got two big problems here.

 

First, unless they are allowed to disclose the "commercially sensitive" data they're already starting the task with one hand tied behind their backs. And secondly, we have seen oer a few years now how bad the PL is run, how it is unable to robustly defend its position in courts or tribunals and the cost to them of doing so. Say Man City sign 100 blatantly dodgy sponsorship deals tomorrow, how much resource will it take for the PL to defend them, do they have any other skeletons in the closet that will hinder them at disclosure and do the PL clus have the stomach to keep on funding several expensive legal battles?

 

That, the reversal of the burden of proof, alongside other restrictive changes in wording of the APT rules like 'could' to 'would' were what led Man City to bring the case.

 

That was Man City's challenge, in addition they threw the kitchen sink at the PL and not all of that stuck, as it wouldn't tend to when someone throws the kitchen sink. But they were entirely successful in challenging the amendments that caused them to bring the case against the PL in the first place.

 

[Terraloon]

2 hours ago, duo said:

Clubs will be able to get more through as part of APT deals but the rules are still there.  The biggest impact I can see is the ruling that interest free loans shouldn't be excluded from PSR and clubs need to be paying interest.  That'll bring a lot of clubs in to play of breaching the rules which in turn will have more clubs wanting change - which can only benefit us.

I posted elsewhere on the point of interest . The ruling doesn’t mean that interest will be charged at all what it does mean that in PSR calculations there will be notional  adjustments in respect of an assumed sum.

 

That said it was pointed out to me that it’s quite possible that say KSE at Arsenal do charge interest of say £15 million Pa KSE in turn as a consequence of ruling around sponsorship simply sponsor say the training ground or maybe become a global partner fir say £15 million Pa to in effect nullify any charge to interest 

 

 

Edited October 8 by Terraloon