Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[Joelinton7]

Yawn 

 

[TheBrownBottle]

16 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

And who sets the price, and what appeals are allowed if the price doesn't reflect the value to the owning party?

 

 

edit: So it's an auction? Was that what happened in the Chelsea case?

 

 

 

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell.  But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL.  So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.  

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Never going to happen in a million years man 

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will.  It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance. 

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will.  It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance. 

Got as much chance of it happening as Sunderland having a sell out midweek crowd 

[Jonas]

Its like the opposite of the game monopoly.

In that game you can buy a ton of pretend things with pretend money that has no value in the real world, you can only pretend to be rich.

Whereas with football now you can have as much real life actual money that in any other walk of life has face-value value and you can buy anything you like but in the game of football its meaningless and worth nothing and you have to pretend to be poor.

 

[Stifler]

I told you all about this last week.

 

The amendment still hasn’t passed review in the House of Commons, they started debating amendments yesterday, but didn’t get past what the bill should be titled as.

Anyway, one of the most prominent Lords speaking in the House of Lords and debating it, is the Lord of Whitley Bay, who is a Newcastle United fan.

I told you all that I had emailed him, and emailed another Lord about this amendment, but all I got was ridicule.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Stifler

[McDog]

1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell.  But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL.  So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.  

So they promote someone to take their place and they play in non-league? That is absurd.

 

[Stifler]

It would really even force a sale per se. All it would mean is that control is handed from PIF to a private equity firm, like Man City is.

Man City would only fall foul of this rule because a director has a role within the Abi Dhabi government, if he was either removed as director, or his role, then they would comply.

 

All of this is assuming that this amendment passes. Just 1 Lord or Baroness objecting to it within the House of Lords will be enough to block it, and then it’s still got to go to the House of Commons to pass there as well.

The article even says it is very unlikely to pass, and it’s just a Lord who is a Liverpool fan pushing his luck.

I was watching them talk about this bill last night, and they were arguing over what it should be titled, and then some Lords and even Karen Brady reminded everyone that some aspects could lead to litigation, and also wouldn’t be in compliance with UEFA, and FIFA laws. This was a discussion over the title of the bill, and the inclusion of the word ‘sustainable’.