Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Unbelievable]

4 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Yep. And there is no way they will lose the 115 case now. They will simply nuke the entire league if it doesn't go their way. I love how savage they are being with the PL, it's great to see.

I don't think this case has that much bearing on the 115 case tbh, considering those breaches were before this APT nonsense came in IIRC?

[Colos Short and Curlies]

6 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I don't think this case has that much bearing on the 115 case tbh, considering those breaches were before this APT nonsense came in IIRC?

imo city aren’t actually that bothered about the APT rules and they won’t be the big winners from the ruling.

 

what they now have is a view into the PLs legal thinking and one view on how an independent panel views them.

 

that is invaluable in the way they defend themselves against the 115 and is the real reason they took the opportunity to ‘test’ APT and threw a lot more at the accusations then would ever stick 

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

I don't think this case has that much bearing on the 115 case tbh, considering those breaches were before this APT nonsense came in IIRC?

 

But, will the APT rules at that time stand up to scrutiny? Essentially what the charges seem to relate to are Man City making APTs without disclosing that, if rules were unlawful or badly drafted so they can show they didn't breach the rules at the time, then they would probably get away with it.

[FloydianMag]

9 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I don't think this case has that much bearing on the 115 case tbh, considering those breaches were before this APT nonsense came in IIRC?

No, but recent cases against LCFC, NFFC, Everton and the APT arbitration have shown how incompetent the PL are and the value of having the best lawyers money can buy, I reckon the 115 case will collapse.

[Abacus]

For us, stadium naming rights and training ground sponsorships haven't happened yet. Weren't there rumours of sponsorship deals on the way? If that was the case, I'd wonder why they have stalled. 

[timeEd32]

3 minutes ago, Abacus said:

For us, stadium naming rights and training ground sponsorships haven't happened yet. Weren't there rumours of sponsorship deals on the way? If that was the case, I'd wonder why they have stalled. 

The (optimistic) thinking was that we’re waiting on the result of this to make sure we were getting maximum value. Still in limbo, but we should know soon if that’s the case or if we’re just slow.

[Abacus]

1 minute ago, timeEd32 said:

The (optimistic) thinking was that we’re waiting on the result of this to make sure we were getting maximum value. Still in limbo, but we should know soon if that’s the case or if we’re just slow.

Or if they've been held up. Unreasonably.

[Guest]

And on it goes

[Mase]

31 minutes ago, Unbelievable said:

I don't think this case has that much bearing on the 115 case tbh, considering those breaches were before this APT nonsense came in IIRC?

This case doesn’t directly affect the 115 - what it does show is how truly incompetent the Premier League are. If they’ve brought a ruling in without proper consideration or consultation, what does it say about these charges?

[timeEd32]

My worry heading into this is that City would win on some technicalities and the PL would respond by simply amending some language and minor process.

 

The shareholder thing is, in my opinion, bigger than a technicality but regardless City’s aggressiveness means this could go anywhere.

 

I’m not sure how anyone could have any measure of confidence about where this ends up (aside from some form of PSR will exist).

[Jackie Broon]

8 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

My worry heading into this is that City would win on some technicalities and the PL would respond by simply amending some language and minor process.

 

The shareholder thing is, in my opinion, bigger than a technicality but regardless City’s aggressiveness means this could go anywhere.

 

I’m not sure how anyone could have any measure of confidence about where this ends up (aside from some form of PSR will exist).

 

I think the burden of proof and other changes to the wording in the amendments being found to be unlawful is a big thing too. It seems it's going to be very difficult for the PL to change the APT and FMV rules in future to make them any more stringent than they were before February's amendments.

[FloydianMag]

 

[Jonas]

6 hours ago, Nucasol said:

For me it’s the sanctimoniousness and ladder pulling up of the Red Shirts and Spurs that irks me the most. Successful by nature of geography, previous benefactors and history now refusing the chance for anyone else to do that. Throw in their south coast and London bitches like Palace, Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth and West Ham who can charge £100 a ticket and you’ve got half the league’s voting pool in cahoots to keep the status quo.

 

The Red Shirt Cartel clip the wings of those who dare to compete; The Cockney Cuck Clubs put the boot into the promoted teams to protect themselves.

Aye, it wasn't enough to hold City back and stifle us and others with say a blanket rule on spending because they had to have the very advantages over everyone else that they're hysterical and crying foul about anybody else having over them - having more money to spend - so they baked up PSR.

A pecking order of spending is too ridiculous for words. As its ultimately as sport thats like letting the fasters sprinters have a head start at the Olympics, it would be a procession which is precisely how they want it as it happens.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Jonas

[TRon]

6 hours ago, Nucasol said:

For me it’s the sanctimoniousness and ladder pulling up of the Red Shirts and Spurs that irks me the most. Successful by nature of geography, previous benefactors and history now refusing the chance for anyone else to do that. Throw in their south coast and London bitches like Palace, Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth and West Ham who can charge £100 a ticket and you’ve got half the league’s voting pool in cahoots to keep the status quo.

 

The Red Shirt Cartel clip the wings of those who dare to compete; The Cockney Cuck Clubs put the boot into the promoted teams to protect themselves.

 

I suppose some clubs will always have certain advantages, whether that's location, catchment area or just history. That's fair enough, we also benefit to some degree, it's just how it is and part of football. It's the pulling of the drawbridge stopping other teams from competing that sticks in the craw, especially since certain clubs have already got into the cartel by dint of outside investment. it's a bit of an idictment of the ruling body of the PL that this has had to go to court just to expose their lack of impartiality.

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

 

 

I forgot until reading this that the amendments in February passed with 12 votes for and two abstaining. I believe it's the first time any PL rule change was made with only 12 votes.

 

Looking back it's believed that the clubs who voted against are City, Newcastle, Chelsea, Everton, Forest, and Sheffield United. The abstentions came from Burnley and Palace. 

[Jackie Broon]

20 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I suppose some clubs will always have certain advantages, whether that's location, catchment area or just history. That's fair enough, we also benefit to some degree, it's just how it is and part of football. It's the pulling of the drawbridge stopping other teams from competing that sticks in the craw, especially since certain clubs have already got into the cartel by dint of outside investment. it's a bit of an idictment of the ruling body of the PL that this has had to go to court just to expose their lack of impartiality.

 

After hearing about the planned meeting with of PL clubs with her I wrote to Lisa Nandy about this yesterday. Not that it will make any difference but I felt I had to say something.

[Cristov]

The big fish clubs got to an elevated level of where they are prior to any of the current owners acquiring said clubs. For a new owner to come in and prevent any other club (never mind mine), from trying to being equal or greater than them is purely unjust.

 

Honestly just fed up with this now. 

[bobbydazzla]

2 hours ago, TRon said:

 

I suppose some clubs will always have certain advantages, whether that's location, catchment area or just history. That's fair enough, we also benefit to some degree, it's just how it is and part of football. It's the pulling of the drawbridge stopping other teams from competing that sticks in the craw, especially since certain clubs have already got into the cartel by dint of outside investment. it's a bit of an idictment of the ruling body of the PL that this has had to go to court just to expose their lack of impartiality.

 

Yep, it's the double standards and snidey way the PL are willing to be influenced by cartel clubs that is a disgrace.

 

NUFC had been run into the ground by Ashley in both a financial and sporting context. A joke on and off the pitch.

 

Someone buys us who has the potential to turn that situation around with an injection of money and within days the PL whore and their cartel pimps put rules in place to stop NUFC from becoming more competitive.

 

BEFORE we'd even had time to spend a penny or propose a financial deal. Think about that aspect of it. They were determined to stop us being competitive from day one. But more than happy to watch us become an anti-competitive yo-yo club under Ashley.

 

They never put APT rules in place to protect NUFC from receiving fuck all money whilst associated party Sports Direct got fuckloads of free advertising and our commercial income sank from world leading to fuck all. 

 

They're all a bunch of cunts and this Man City case has blown their scam right open for the world to see just how bent the PL and these cartel clubs are.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by bobbydazzla

[Cronky]

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. 

 

What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. 

 

The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before.

 

The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. 

 

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

[Jackie Broon]

17 minutes ago, Cronky said:

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. 

 

What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. 

 

The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before.

 

The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. 

 

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

 

Only in the context of PSR not being challenged. Essentially the decision says that PSR hasn't been challenged and so the principle of PSR is accepted, in that context APT control is necessary for PSR.

 

192. We agree that the move to an ex ante regime with a freeze on monies being used until there has been a determination that the APT is evidently not above FMV is a more intrusive market intervention than the previous ex post regime. However, as we have found, the evidence referred to at [180] above, indicates that there were difficulties in the speedy and effective investigation of potential breaches under the ex post regime. RPTs were not being declared, and any restatement would be made long after the money had been done. As a result, the PSR was not effective. There has been no challenge to the PSR or to the principle of detecting and eliminating subsidies by way of RPTs with the clubs.

 

 

Edited October 9 by Jackie Broon

[et tu brute]

36 minutes ago, Cronky said:

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. 

 

What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. 

 

The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before.

 

The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. 

 

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

The current rules are anti-competitive and the premier league are as corrupt as they come.

[bobbydazzla]

1 hour ago, Cronky said:

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. 

 

What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. 

 

The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before.

 

The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. 

 

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

I don’t want us acting like City when they were taken over

 

But I want us to be able to spend enough to bring a dilapidated squad up to a level where we can compete

 

We were a zombie club, scraping the bottom of the barrel for players, a joke of a corporate structure and a commercial strategy that was based on giving millions of quid of free advertising to Sports Direct. The very definition of a dodgy APT that absolutely wasn’t FMV. 

 

We now have owners who can right those wrongs, but they’re not allowed to by rules that are geared to benefit clubs that are already successful 

 

Other clubs weren’t held back by a parastic owner for 14 years and were able to cement their place at the upper end of the table during a period of insane financial growth. And now they don’t like the thought of any new competition pushing their noses out of the trough so have conspired with the PL to stop it happening 

 

 

Edited October 9 by bobbydazzla

[Unbelievable]

1 hour ago, Cronky said:

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. 

 

What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. 

 

The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before.

 

The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. 

 

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

Mate, I think all most level headed Newcastle fans would want to see is to have our owners allowed to use their financial might to create an even battle field. Just cap yearly revenue on footballing cost so that each club has the same limitations and it comes down to who runs the best operation. It’s more or less how the F1 budget cap works and after a few years in existence lo and behold the competitiveness is insane and all teams are making a profit (self sustainability).

[timeEd32]

1 hour ago, Cronky said:

People are talking as though the Premier League is a dodgy employer of the clubs. The Premier League is actually a collective, and the clubs agree by a certain majority to institute rules and make any changes. Of course each club will have its own interests and they won't all be compatible. There needs to be compromise and some sort of spirit of co-operation, however difficult that might be. 

 

What you can't have is one club ignoring the rules that have been mutually agreed and set, and then jamming things up in the legal system in a threatening manner to get their own way. 

 

The Premier League are right in that the legality of the basic functions of the APT have been upheld. All but one of the criticisms have been procedural. The issue of interest free loans is the only item of significance, and I don't recall a big fuss being made about that issue before.

 

The word 'unlawful' is floating around, but this is a grey area of law, subject to interpretation and opinion. The idea that this is all rank incompetence on the part of the Premier League is nonsense. 

 

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

 

In theory the two-thirds majority is fair, except you have a handful of clubs who are effectively pulling all of the strings and using their power to influence the direction of the league in their favor. 

 

Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, and Everton are the only clubs that have participated in every PL vote since 1992. The fact there's a rotating cast of meeting and voting participants means power can be more easily concentrated. Do you think anyone in that room really cared what Sheffield United, one of the oldest clubs in the history of the sport and a founding member of the PL, had to say last season?

 

Then you have the fact that a group of clubs feels (with some justification mind you) that they are the reason the league makes so much money. And they use this fact and their "generosity" in maintaining the revenue sharing model to influence proceedings. And when that wasn't enough this same group was ready to burn down over a century of English football to make sure their seat at the table was guaranteed for the next 100 years.

 

Yes, City was a part of that and they almost certainly cheated in various ways to get to where they are. And if the PL offered to drop the 115 charges in exchange for no more lawsuits they'd probably have a deal done tomorrow. But absent that, City are the only club in the league with the power, prestige, finances, and impetus to challenge the continual attempts to pull up the drawbridge at the top. 

 

City's interests don't exactly align with ours, but they are a ray of hope right now for clubs with ambition to challenge the status quo at the top or middle of the table. You can label them as a bad guy in all this, but you need to recognize they are far from the only one in terms of going against "fair competition throughout the pyramid."

[Jonas]

2 hours ago, Cronky said:

Come on guys, the only reason there is so much celebration is a lot of us think we will now be able to act like City in the earlier days - an owner of huge wealth being able to outbid all rivals. Firstly, I don't think the Saudis came in with the intention of splashing the cash just for dreams of glory. Staveley sold it to them as a business proposition. I don't think they will want a free-for-all. Secondly, and personally, I think it is right that there are rules to ensure fair competition throughout the pyramid, and to protect clubs from irresponsible owners. Yes, I think the rules should be adjusted, but anarchy - and this is where I'm worried that we're heading - will do nobody any good.

That's a factor only inasfar as we weren't even allowed to continue doing the smart business we had been up until a year ago because of these rules and even without it I'd be steadfastly against a brave new world that ensures forever the dominance of the already dominant and would mean the trohpies won in the last 40years by  Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City, Oxford, Wigan, Middlesbrough, Leicester and others due to wealthy benefactors will never happen again, so no more dreaming and more trophies for the cartel.  It would be the opposite of anarchy but stagnancy is as unappealing.

 

 

 

Edited October 9 by Jonas