Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[BergenMagpie]

18 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Masters thinking he can take the PL job, hop on a gravy train, maintain the status quo by keeping the cartel happy and he’s got an easy life for years with plenty of bunce

 

A frontman, just needs to nod along and not rock the boat 

Didn't Man Utd and Liverpool urge the other PL clubs to cough up 500k each as a parting gift to the last PL CEO when he retired? Was obvious that the next guy would be working for them before Masters even applied for the job. The fact that they got to choose him sums it up

 

 

Edited Saturday at 09:46 by BergenMagpie

[Kid Icarus]

26 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

The judgement says the old rules can’t be severed by the 3 changes they made and yet Masters and co think the new rules are still in place and need to be adhered to.

 

If the other clubs outside the cartel don’t realise now is the time for a vote of no confidence they never will.

Tbf Masters might be a convenient fall guy for those clubs too at this point. Masters has created this path towards going to court and the rules being found unlawful. Someone competent might have kept everyone sweet but with some restrictions in place. 

[bobbydazzla]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

He's done exactly that, tbf.  I reckon the cunt sleeps like a baby.

Nah, his PAYG burner phone will be red hot 24/7 with threatening calls and messages from various PL club owners 

 

And most of them are American so they’ll be hassling him when it’s jarmies on time over here 

 

Masters has got to explain to his masters how he’s going to repay them for their lost Champions League bunce  

[Nucasol]

[Mahoneys Tache]

12 hours ago, gdm said:

 

What a commanding orator. He should have gone into politics. Riveting. 

[duo]

Kaveh hasn't a clue what he's saying

[Jackie Broon]

On 07/02/2025 at 19:42, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't think so, this is clearly to deal with the question of whether the amendments to the rules are sufficient to address what the previous tribunal found made them unlawful.

 

One interesting point from the PL's letter is "Manchester City FC seeks a declaration that the amendments approved by clubs in November (and therefore the current APT rules in force) are unlawful and void."

 

That suggests that it has now been established that the previous APT rules were void, which is not something that the PL accepted before.

 

 

 

 

Called it.

[manorpark]

3 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

BTW if anyone is interested in this stuff / bored beyond all reason and wants something to look at, then you can do a 'spot the difference' exercise between the APT rules before and after the December republication of Handbook and its changes.

 

Before (page 132):

 

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2022/07/19/40085fed-1e9e-4c33-9f14-0bcf57857da2/PL_Handbook_2022-23_DIGITAL_18.07.pdf

 

After (page 135):

 

https://resources.premierleague.pulselive.com/premierleague/document/2024/12/11/e9aa1b9e-a7d5-4788-8afe-6e07b8a5f5fc/TM1603-PL_Handbook-and-Collateral-2024-25_11.12_DIGITAL.pdf

 

There is no way that unlawful and void rules can be left largely the same and 'tweaked a bit' in November 2024 in three areas and suddenly (magically) become lawful.

 

We await the tribunals imminent confirmation of that obvious fact, but meanwhile La La Land (sorry, Masters and the Premier League) continue to bluster that the November 2024 'variation' of the void rules remain fine, perfect, and threaten that they are 'still in force'. 

 

The Premier League as currently structured is finished.

[Ikon]

I don’t want us to go crazy when it comes to spending. I just want us to be able to keep hold of our players and be able to add enough here and there to make our current stars feel like we are going places. Allowed to compete with others in transfer windows and not needing to (be forced) sell our players to progress. 

[manorpark]

3 minutes ago, Ikon said:

I don’t want us to go crazy when it comes to spending. I just want us to be able to keep hold of our players and be able to add enough here and there to make our current stars feel like we are going places. Allowed to compete with others in transfer windows and not needing to (be forced) sell our players to progress. 

 

All I want is fairness.

 

This requires the formal disbanding of the Cartel, and the removal of all those individuals at the Premier league who helped to form and maintain the Cartel.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

 

 

Edited Saturday at 13:03 by manorpark

[wyn davies]

Aside re cartels in football , there's a lot of case studies on the .gov website about UK cartels, just surprised the alleged football cartels haven't also been reviewed.

[gjohnson]

So are we now allowed to be sponsored by Saudia for a billion pounds a year?

[Jackie Broon]

 

19 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

So are we now allowed to be sponsored by Saudia for a billion pounds a year?

 

If we had put in a deal for sign-off before the current rules were in place there would possibly be nothing the PL could do to stop us going ahead with it now.

 

If we were to put one in now we'd have to wait and see what happens with APT2.

 

But, it would fall foul of UEFA's APT test if/when we get into Europe.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 13:51 by Jackie Broon

[Wolfcastle]

50 minutes ago, Ikon said:

I don’t want us to go crazy when it comes to spending. I just want us to be able to keep hold of our players and be able to add enough here and there to make our current stars feel like we are going places. Allowed to compete with others in transfer windows and not needing to (be forced) sell our players to progress. 

The way we were going was just fine for me and in a necessity is the mother of invention way it was working better than a Man City/Blackburn splurge.

A big signing 40-75m ala Tonali or Bruno every year, supplemented by bits of smart business like Pope and Burn and some youngsters was fine.

Its absurd that even that slow, smart build was prohibited

[manorpark]

19 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

 

If we had put in a deal for sign-off before the current rules were in place there would possibly be nothing the PL could do to stop us going ahead with it now.

 

 

 

We do not know how many times we did this do we?

[manorpark]

20 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

 

But, it would fall foul of UEFA's APT test if/when we get into Europe.

 

 

 

I know UEFA have slightly different squad cost ratio rules to the one being currently 'trialled' here by the EPL, but I was not aware that they had any of their own APT rules at all?

[TRon]

Fuck UEFA tbh. Just get the sponsors lined up.

[HayDen Traces]

PSG manage to navigate UEFA's spending rules alright

[Jackie Broon]

23 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

I know UEFA have slightly different squad cost ratio rules to the one being currently 'trialled' here by the EPL, but I was not aware that they had any of their own APT rules at all?

 

Their rules do also require that related party transactions are at fair market value and have a process set out in the rules for assessing that. Although what constitutes a related party isn't as stringently definitely as the PL's associated party definition.

[TRon]

6 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

The PL legal team probably anticipated the rules were unlawful and encouraged a new vote in spite of the ruling once first verdict was given, they’ll know their amended rules are also unlawful, however they’re masters of kicking the can down the road and delaying.

 

On very dodgy ground now the PL and this could be very costly for all the clubs.

 

 

 

The PL are just lucky that Everton or Leicester didn't get relegated on the back of points deductions, otherwise they could be facing very costly compensation claims. It's the clubs who are ultimately paying for this, at some point they have to stop funding this breaking of the law.

[Likelylad]

I imagine UEFA are watching this and thinking they need to do the complete opposite of the Prem. 

[David Edgar]

Maybe we can invest in our squad soon to the extent our owners would like. Maybe.

[Wolfcastle]

The day cant come soon enough. If this is the 'competitiveness' were to expect indefinitely.

[Stifler]

3 hours ago, Likelylad said:

I imagine UEFA are watching this and thinking they need to do the complete opposite of the Prem. 

With the threat of the ESL hanging over them, UEFA won’t go after anyone.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 18:00 by Stifler

[pubteam]

1 hour ago, David Edgar said:

Maybe we can invest in our squad soon to the extent our owners would like. Maybe.

But then how much do they actually want to invest into the club? They may have decided it’s too much trouble. City have challenged the rules and Chelsea found a route around them.