FloydianMag Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 28 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Literally nothing has changed from what we knew. Some of the APT rules were judged to be against UK law - and the PL was going to redraft the offending articles. Their redrafts may also fall foul of it. The PL cocked up with their hastily rewritten rules. That doesn’t mean the end of the rules. I’d be surprised if we have any benefit gained between 21-24. The ones who should be troubled are those who had director debts not accumulating interest. My understanding is they applied the ‘blue pencil test’ which allows the removal of the unlawful sections of the rules but doesn’t allow for anything to be added to the rules. The PL have added things to the amended rules around director loans I believe. The APT 2 hearing is also likely to declare these as being illegal also especially as it’s the same independent panel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: My understanding is they applied the ‘blue pencil test’ which allows the removal of the unlawful sections of the rules but doesn’t allow for anything to be added to the rules. The PL have added things to the amended rules around director loans I believe. The APT 2 hearing is also likely to declare these as being illegal also especially as it’s the same independent panel. 100% - but again, we do have to wait for that panel to meet. And there is nothing to stop the PL entirely changing all the rules and having a new FFP model - the biggest issue that I can see is the PL blocking sponsorship deals, which is restraint of trade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: My understanding is they applied the ‘blue pencil test’ which allows the removal of the unlawful sections of the rules but doesn’t allow for anything to be added to the rules. The PL have added things to the amended rules around director loans I believe. The APT 2 hearing is also likely to declare these as being illegal also especially as it’s the same independent panel. Director loans that were not backdated because they strong armed one of the impacted parties to change their vote for preferential treatment. The Everton thing was a farce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) So, how far reaching does the compensation go? It's one thing to say there's potentially a level of fee missed out on through blocked sponsorship deals, but would it also affect something like having to have sold players of potential, at a loss, or just selling them full stop, when they could have provided better cover for an already thin squad, due to books needing to be balanced on PSR rules? Rules which potentially wouldn't have been anywhere near to being breached had we been allowed to put a higher paying sponsor in place? Or is that pushing it? Edited February 14 by Armchair Pundit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattypnufc Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I’d argue it’s very much one and the same, as if you’d had higher commercial income your PSR compliance wouldn’t be in question and therefore no need to sell. Going to be some interesting cases coming along is my guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 29 minutes ago, Mase said: Looks like he was Liverpool and Man United’s first choice https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7988919/amp/Premier-League-rivals-furious-Liverpool-Man-United-allowed-vet-league-CEO-candidates.html Oh dear. Well at least he must have a good pension to look forward to along with free tickets Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 The entire structure of English football needs to be completely overhauled. The PL breakaway itself is the source of so many problems - remember, the ‘big clubs’ wanted the breakaway so that they weren’t drastically outvoted by the ‘small clubs’ of the rest of the FL. The league shouldn’t be administered by the clubs - it should be via the FA (which also needs serious reform). Changing the FFP rules is a sticking plaster. English football is a mess, a mess which is covered over by the ludicrous sums of money which have poured into it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 30 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Tbh we are still in the ‘wait and see’ territory. The majority of PL clubs want rules in place - a handful of those rules running aground doesn’t mean that the PL won’t engage lawyers to try to nail the wording. They’re not just going to back down and walk away. I’ve no interest in the excitable views of the football press, who report based on what they want to happen rather than knowledge of what is happening. Martin Samuel for example is a long-standing critic of the rules (with good reason of course). It’s all agenda-driven. When the PL rule book is changed, that’s when it’s over. As I said earlier the Premier League have been mouthing off every time and then found to be fucked in court. The tribunal have found the entire APT rules to be null and void, as it only takes 1 illegal point to make this be the case. The rule book has been changed and city immediately have took it back to the court under the same tribunal. The Premier League are fucked here also, as by not backdating owner loans given at no interest/below the going rate, they will be found illegal again and those rules will be judged null and void also. PIF have played an excellent game here, doing everything above board and working with Man City whilst playing the waiting game. I think you're totally on the wrong track here, and just about everything you have based things has been on guesswork (including what sponsorship has already been tables previously). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 5 minutes ago, et tu brute said: As I said earlier the Premier League have been mouthing off every time and then found to be fucked in court. The tribunal have found the entire APT rules to be null and void, as it only takes 1 illegal point to make this be the case. The rule book has been changed and city immediately have took it back to the court under the same tribunal. The Premier League are fucked here also, as by not backdating owner loans given at no interest/below the going rate, they will be found illegal again and those rules will be judged null and void also. PIF have played an excellent game here, doing everything above board and working with Man City whilst playing the waiting game. I think you're totally on the wrong track here, and just about everything you have based things has been on guesswork (including what sponsorship has already been tables previously). This is the important bit. The whole thing is null and void. Not sure how anyone can not view this as a positive for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 From the Mail article: That means that any deals that were rejected or reduced in value under the system, which operated between December 2021 and November 2024, could now be subject to hefty compensation claims. If a club believes its competitive performance was harmed by a decision made under the previous APT system, it could sue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Nucasol said: From the Mail article: That means that any deals that were rejected or reduced in value under the system, which operated between December 2021 and November 2024, could now be subject to hefty compensation claims. If a club believes its competitive performance was harmed by a decision made under the previous APT system, it could sue. If FMV still stands, couldn't the first bolded piece then be legal and wouldn't the rejected deals need to meet FMV? It's all very confusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 11 minutes ago, McDog said: If FMV still stands, couldn't the first bolded piece then be legal and wouldn't the rejected deals need to meet FMV? It's all very confusing. FMV and APT are at least cousins who fuck. APT goes away and FMV is merely a lonely wanker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, Colos Short and Curlies said: FMV and APT are at least cousins who fuck. APT goes away and FMV is merely a lonely wanker Intertwined for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Few things: 1. The FFP rules run on a 3 year window. That window is going to include the time that the apt rules have been declared void (2021-2024). It feels a little off that the FFP calcs can include a period where clubs were forced to follow unlawful rules. 2. The PL approach seems clear to me now. They have knowingly put in rules that will be unlawful due to the director loans transition period. They need to make sure that the current rules are not declared unlawful until the transition period is complete. If they are they can simply vote in the same rules without the transition period. 3. We have to be submitting deals now (if we have no it already) that will be rejected such that we can use this for compensation later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Charlton Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Masters Out Staveley In Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 If Mike Ashley hadn’t sold to PIF none of these corrupt chickens would have come home to roost Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and Newcastle fans now all refuse to shop at Sports Direct, Frasers or Flannels Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 From Daily Mail.. Quote If a club believes its competitive performance was harmed by a decision made under the previous APT system, it could sue. PIF.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Cue ESL craic emerging in the new few days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) If this makes a material difference, hopefully I can get over the seethe of Minteh and Anderson, as we can dump that fuking useless greek keeper. Forest are laughing over that one like. Edited February 14 by Turnbull2000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Honestly couldn't give a flying fuck. I didn't mind the rules, although clearly not well thought through, as much as I hated the reason and teams responsible for them. The principle of avoiding owners taking the piss by throwing unlimited money at a club through an associated party is good imo. however there needs to be more leeway in how much an owner can invest in a club without a fake sponsorship as long as the future of the club is secured appropriately against bankruptcy. We'll get there eventually rules in place or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colos Short and Curlies Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 14 minutes ago, Conjo said: Honestly couldn't give a flying fuck. I didn't mind the rules, although clearly not well thought through, as much as I hated the reason and teams responsible for them. The principle of avoiding owners taking the piss by throwing unlimited money at a club through an associated party is good imo. however there needs to be more leeway in how much an owner can invest in a club without a fake sponsorship as long as the future of the club is secured appropriately against bankruptcy. We'll get there eventually rules in place or not. Anchoring seems to be the fairest way to prevent unlimited money being spent. You'd need a secondary measure on having the cash to service any losses made and if you want to limit direct sponsorship into this then you would need to apply interest to loans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Hahaha What news to wake up to. It's important to remember this is all the cartels doing so they can get fucked. The PL used to pass rules based on every club agreeing, they've decided to piss that model away and go full protectionism of the rich. People shit on city but city were fine with rules which restrained them for years it's only when the PL started taking the piss they got clapped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Are we to believe that the postponement of squad cost ratio a mere few days ago is unrelated to this? If not, why would they have made that decision? 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